Republicans hate Gays

I am not able to understand how a Gay person can be a republican. Do you not realize that, given the power, most republicans would put us in concentration camps or have us killed? They are Gay bashers and haters who would prefer to see us dead. If you do not understand this you are sticking your head in the sand and ignoring reality.

the Cajun

>Do you not realize that, given the power, most

>republicans would put us in concentration camps or have us

>killed?

Cajun, I understand your anger but that is not true. Yes, there is the radical, religious right-wing of the Republican party that is homophobic, but to brand every Republican as a gay-hater is unfair. I've never paid much attention to politics until this year, because there's a new urgency for obvious reasons; I've recently met and spoken with Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Greens...all at Meetups for Howard Dean. Let's try to see people as individuals. (end of preachy post)

kjun, your sentiments are well-placed, but here in New York there are actually good republicans like Mike Bloomberg. Well, there may be another one, but I can't think of his name right now...

It is silly to say that Republican hate gays and want to kill them. It is not true. But it plainly is true that you hate Republicans. So look at the other side of the coin. If I were a Democrat, I would be associating myself with hatemongers like you. Yuk.

Look to a republican to take an intelligent discussion and turn it into a name-calling smear. Shame on you, Merlin, calling kjun a hatemonger!

that is just ridiculously stupid!

Then how would you characterize his post then??

Even I have never branded all Democrats the same.

Well... there WAS that speech by Pat Buchanan at a not-so-far-in-the-distant-past RNC Convention, but I digress.

Surely not every Republican hates homosexuals. The Log Cabineers are Republican and obviously they don't hate homosexuals. Dick Cheny's daugher is a lesbian and I know Dick loves her. Hell, I'll even go so far as to say Dick has publicly stated that he sees no need for federal involvement in the subject. However (and correct me if I'm wrong) that was a couple of years back. Dick's been kind of silent on the subject in light of recent news events conerning Life as a Sodomite. Perhaps he's in an undisclosed secure location until Christmas. I'm sure he'll speak out on this.

The verdict is out on Mr. Bush. He says we should all be tolerant though. I'm sure he'll pull for through for in the end. We all know deep down Republicans hate when the federal governemnt bites off more than it should.

However, certain elements adore legislating morality.

>Well... there WAS that speech by Pat Buchanan at a

>not-so-far-in-the-distant-past RNC Convention, but I digress.

mr buchanan isn't all republicans!

>Surely not every Republican hates homosexuals.

yet, the original poster claimed just that!

>Hell, I'll even go so far as to say Dick has

>publicly stated that he sees no need for federal involvement

>in the subject.

and many republicans would agree with that.

>However (and correct me if I'm wrong) that

>was a couple of years back. Dick's been kind of silent on the

>subject in light of recent news events conerning Life as a

>Sodomite.

so unless they're yammering incessantly you doubt their sincerity? please! even barney frank doesn't lisp & stutter about such things nonstop.

>However, certain elements adore legislating morality.

would those be the same elements that signed DOMA (Clinton-Dem.) or blocked the gays in the military initiative (Nunn-Dem.)???

>mr buchanan isn't all republicans!

Please re-read my post. I didn't not state that.

>yet, the original poster claimed just that!

I am not that poster and I made a statement contradicting his assertion. Please re-read my post.

>and many republicans would agree with that.

How much is "many"? A majority of the party? Doubtful. Please provide a link to such vital information. I'm sure it would silence The Flock.

>so unless they're yammering incessantly you doubt their sincerity?

Indeed.

> would those be the same elements that signed DOMA (Clinton-Dem.) or blocked the gays in the military initiative (Nunn-Dem.)???

The legislation of morality is not exclusive to the subject of homosexuality by either party. The influence of the evangelical movement on the RNC is quite documented. Comments?

The influence of "minorities" on Democrats claiming racism anytime somebody disagrees with them is well-documented. Comments?

>Look to a republican to take an intelligent discussion and

>turn it into a name-calling smear. Shame on you, Merlin,

>calling kjun a hatemonger!

If you actually think - as you claim - that it constitutes "intelligent discussion" to claim that most Republicans want to put gay people in concentration camps and murder them, then you have serious moral and intellectual deficiencies. There is nothing intelligent or substantive about that statement; it is reprehsensible, bigoted, stupid and sad.

It is truly amazing to come to a Board filled with gay people who spew anger and horror and outrage at any comment that is even slightly derogatory or critical about gay people or about any other favored group, such as black people or liberals. Why, any comments of that nature constitutes "hate speech" and bigotry and should be condemned and attacked, and the speakers making such statements should be castigated, ostrascized, fired and even indicted!

But the same exact type of statements -- and far, far worse ones, such as the bacetria which gave birth to this thread -- are not only ignored but applauded, as long as they are directed towards groups that are reviled here, such as, oh, say Republicans, or Christians.

So many people all over the place, and in this forum, profess to be just livid - absolutely livid - that Mrs. Satan herself, Ann Coulter, published a book accusing most libreals of being treasonous. No expression of hatred is too extreme for her.

I would love for someone to explain how what she said is any different than accusing "most Republicans" of wanting to erect concentration camps and engage in the mass murder of gay people. And I would also love for someone to explain why those comments, when directed at liberals, produce such screaming outrage, but those same comments directed at "Republicans" produce (with some honorable exceptions, such as Rick's post) silent consent and even applause.

If Reagan's total indifference to the suffering and deaths of thousands upon thousands of people with AIDS is not right up there with mass murder, then you are welcome to all of your republican friends.

RW Reagan is the best president this country ever had!

You talk about Reagan. YOu should also talk about your hero who was even told by one of his biggest supporters that he had f**ked up by doing nothing about AIDS and also nothing for his gay supporters. I am talking about Slick and Richard Gere. I see now he all of a sudden got religion and started to do something (he says) about AIDS. Haven't seen that he did anything but talk so far. Of course Hill has done nothing but promise all that she was going to do for the gays (again nothing but talk). Seems to me that if all you do is tell them how much you are going to do for them to get their vote and then do nothing at all, in fact screw them as these two did that you are talking about the wrong people hating gays. To build up hopes and then dash them and then have the unmitigated gall to go back and promise them again just so you can get their vote is far worse than anything the republicans did.

I thought I'd make my post clear in saying "most" republicans are hate mongers. Apparently, some did not read that word. This aside, let me say that anything that I have said at any time or in the future which may be interpreted as rude, ugly, crude or hateful is intended for dick nyc, Doug69 and that stupid little shit DC Boy!

the Cajun

>I thought I'd make my post clear in saying "most" republicans

>are hate mongers. Apparently, some did not read that word.

>This aside, let me say that anything that I have said at any

>time or in the future which may be interpreted as rude, ugly,

>crude or hateful is intended for dick nyc, Doug69 and that

>stupid little shit DC Boy!

>

>the Cajun

whether it includes "most" or not, your post is still dog shit!

when did you conduct your poll of republicans? what data have you collected on which to base your assertion of how most of us feel? i certainly don't remember you asking me.

ps: i am MANY, MANY things, but stupid isn't one of them. you might want to leave the trailer every now & then and take some night school classes before you go casting about epithets and aspersions such as that.

You, my dear boy, are the only person known to have a brain one tenth the size of his dick.

the Cajun

>I thought I'd make my post clear in saying "most" republicans

>are hate mongers.

Is what you are saying a satire, or do you really mean it? Can anyone be this defective?

It's like coming here and saying: "Most black peole are lazy and stupid" or "Most gay people molest children and spread AIDS in bathhouses" or "Most liberals are treasonous and want to destroy America", and then, when people object, you say: "Didn't you read what I wrote? I said MOST, not all."

If most Republicans want to build concentration camps and gas gay poeple, what is stopping them? They control both houses of Congress, the White House, most Govenorships and State Houses, and the courts. Why hasn't anyone introduced a bill yet to start construction on those nice camps for gay people?

And if you are against these camps and against the mass murder of gay people, the best thing you could do to help in the fight against them is to go under your bed and keep your mouth shut and not come out for the rest of your life - or just go ahead and slit your wrists - because if a debate ever does happen regarding whether those camps are a good idea, you'd be the best argument ever for why they should be built immediately.

Oh My, there must be some misunderstanding in your understanding of what I am attempting to convey. Please let me make it perfectly clear. Most republicans I come into contact with are selfish, mean-spirited, anti-gay and assholes just like you. And, I still do not understand what reason a Gay person would be a republican except for some mental defect.

the Cajun

Well... there's always that trick of slipping the Log Cabineers in through the back door.

Then you are not meeting "most" republicans. Most republicans are the very opposite of what you think. So are most people.

As to the rude and crude, I reserve that for those people who seem to deserve it. When someone posts in several places that the escorts who he meets seem to rush him and are dirty and are obnoxious and don't give him the courtesy it rings a big bell. When those items are posted in the MC where the escort probably will never see it and does not get to respond and when those items seem to be posted consistently, then the point should be made that maybe the problem is not with the escort and maybe the poster should take a look at himself. If that to you is rude and ugly and mean-spirited, I plead guilty. If the others let his pass and hurt the livelihood of the escort who in truth may be those things but also may be a very nice person to spend time and money with, then it seems to me that the mean-spirited are the ones who let the criticism stand. Can you come up with a euphemism that will let the guy know that the problem may not be the escort? or would you just let him continue dissing every escort he meets with no response and thus let him stomp on the reputation of all the escorts he meets. YOur call!! When I see the men I respect being called Nazis and being called other names, should I just sit there and say that "sticks and stones may break their bones but words may never hurt them" and ignore it or should I respond in kind or in some other euphemistic manner which meets the Emily Post standard but actually portrays nothing of what I really feel? YOur call!! When I see a religion that I am familiar with and a group of people I am also familiar with being falsely accused or labelled with names that may belong to some of them but not most, should I sit there and ignore it or should I agree to make the caller feel good about himself or should I stand up for what I know is right and true?? Your call!!

Seems to me that you might need to take a good look at whether you are pasting labels on people without thought and whether maybe you need to expand the horizons of the people you know before you call "most" of us the names you do.

that may be so, but it still outperforms most of the idiots roaming the planet.

Sean Hannity on gay marraige

TV's Sean Hannity launches campaign vs. gay marriages[/font size]

Chip Scutari

The Arizona Republic

Nov. 23, 2003 12:00 AM

National talk-show host Sean Hannity had an unequivocal message on Saturday for 800 people who gathered in Mesa to promote a U.S. constitutional amendment banning gay marriage:

Marriage must remain a sacred union between a man and a woman or there will be repercussions that continue the country's moral slide.

"There is no ambiguity for me," said Hannity, who hosts a daily radio and TV show. "Kids need a mother and a father. That's what children need. Traditionally, throughout civilization, marriage has been defined as one man and one woman."

Hannity kicked off the daylong Defend Marriage and Family Conference that was sponsored by the Mesa-based United Families International. The event, which started with a $1,000-a-plate breakfast, launched a $10 million campaign to help amend the Constitution to ban gay marriages. Heather Sandstrom, a spokeswoman for UFI, said the money will help pay for TV commercials, radio spots and newspaper advertisements to "educate the public."

Outside the conference, a dozen protesters held signs and rainbow flags symbolizing gay pride.

"I think we should protect our Constitution," said Phoenix resident Tim McBride, holding a sign that read: "It's OK to be Gay."

"I think we should protect our rights and not throw them away," he added.

The federal marriage amendment, which was introduced in May, faces two hurdles. First, two-thirds of Congress must vote to approve it and 38 state legislatures must to ratify it. Former Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon said he supports the amendment because "children deserve a mother and a father."

"Since modern-day civilization has been recorded, there has been a sacred recognition that marriage is between a man and a woman," said Salmon, who is pondering a return to Congress in 2006. "But getting the constitutional amendment is not an overnight process."

But conservative constitutional scholar Richard Wilkins said changing the U.S. Constitution doesn't have to be a long battle.

"Most constitutional amendments that have been successful have happened between 11 and 18 months," Wilkins said. "These amendments usually happens when there is a strongly perceived sense of injustice or error."

The issue will be played out next year at the Legislature, pitting conservatives vs. gay rights advocates.

RE: Sean Hannity on gay marraige

do any of the other conservatives or Republicans here find sean hannity just a whiney little simp? is it just me?

"waaaaaahhhh... you can't SAY that about the commander-in-chief in a time of war! shame on you."

<YAWN!>