[QUOTE=TokyoPlayer]
It’s not the 'Pubs who are at fault here. If it weren’t for those damn liberals promoting the gay lifestyle then this poor man wouldn’t be so sorely tempted. Then this guy just feel into temptation. He was weak, but we feel sorry for his family.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed. Apparently, some right wing Christian fundamentalist men (and their wives, I guess) seem to view homosexuality as a major temptation which must be resisted with all your strength. They seem to think that it’s a common experience for men to have to fight the urge to have gay sex nearly every day.
[QUOTE=marshmallow]
Indeed. Apparently, some right wing Christian fundamentalist men (and their wives, I guess) seem to view homosexuality as a major temptation which must be resisted with all your strength. They seem to think that it’s a common experience for men to have to fight the urge to have gay sex nearly every day.
[/QUOTE]
Well, for some of them, it apparently is.
[QUOTE=sturmhauke]
He’s suggesting that not all conservatives are Republicans.
[/QUOTE]
No, he seems to be saying that not all Republicans are conservatives, which is defensible. But what he is very strongly implying is that these particular "I’m not " gay Republicans who have been recently outed are not conservatives, which is not defensible based on anything yet presented in this thread.
[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican.
[/QUOTE]
You misspelled the phrase “many politicians.”
While there is a certain irony in the fact that various right wing political or religious leaders appear to engage in homosexual activity, I have seen no evidence that the entire Republican party is more hypocritical than any other group.
Beyond that, the thread appears to be little more than a “bash my political opponents” rant.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
No, he seems to be saying that not all Republicans are conservatives, which is defensible. But what he is very strongly implying is that these particular "I’m not " gay Republicans who have been recently outed are not conservatives, which is not defensible based on anything yet presented in this thread.
[/QUOTE]
Lightnin’ made reference to “the conservative party” to mean Republicans. It is not the only conservative party in the US, nor is it called the Conservative Party, it is merely a conservative party.
As for any other implications, I guess we’ll have to see what Airman says. I’m not seeing it.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I’m not at all surprised; in fact I think it’s cause and effect. The Republican party, as the haven of homophobia, attracts and promotes those that condemn homosexuality the loudest. Which will quite often be self hating/denying gays. If one had a gay-detecter, I think that you’d find that there are quite a few more gay Republican leaders than gay Democratic leaders. And you’d find more gay “family values” Republicans than, say, gay fiscal conservatives.
[/QUOTE]
That is a cogent, coherent, well thought out observation that makes perfect sense. Who are you, and what have you done with Der Trihs?
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
You misspelled the phrase “many politicians.”
While there is a certain irony in the fact that various right wing political or religious leaders appear to engage in homosexual activity, I have seen no evidence that the entire Republican party is more hypocritical than any other group.
[/QUOTE]
You’re kidding, right, Tomndebb? You see no evidence? None? The Republicans may not have an official ‘We hate Gays’ plank, but they certainly do exhibit the sentiment in very public ways. What do you call denying Gays the right to marry, if not outward discrimination and hatred? How the Hell does allowing Gays to marry hurt Republicans, or even society? It must, somehow, otherwise their ire makes no sense. What about woefully ignorant, idiotic public pronouncements that homosexuality is a choice? Yes, there may be Democrats who cleave to such stupidity, but the Republicans are, whether by design or by chance, identified by it. One may successfully argue that it’s the social conservatives who hold to these positions, not the entire Republican party, but that’s only if one has blinders on and doesn’t see how much of the party has been co-opted by social conservative interests who gleefully enact policy designed to deny rights to Gays.
These Republican members are not hypocrites because they’re Gay. They’re hypocrites because they proudly, and sometimes rabidly, market themselves and their positions as being against homosexuality, while engaging in it themselves.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
No, he seems to be saying that not all Republicans are conservatives, which is defensible. But what he is very strongly implying is that these particular "I’m not " gay Republicans who have been recently outed are not conservatives, which is not defensible based on anything yet presented in this thread.
[/QUOTE]
I am simply stating a fact, no more, no less. The Republican party is loaded with people that claim to be conservative but are nothing more than hypocrites. I suppose there is something in the water in DC that causes this, because in retrospect all politicians are hypocrites in some fashion. But I digress.
In any event, any implication you draw from my post is entirely up to you. As I am seen as a conservative on these boards (and compared to most of the SDMB I usually am) I’d thank you not to associate me with the scumbags in question. Attack Republicans at your leisure. Attack them for their faux conservatism if you like. But please don’t speak in generalities. You attacked Weirddave for taking one instance of lunacy and tarring liberals with it, I’d thank you to avoid doing the same to me.
[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
You’re kidding, right, Tomndebb? You see no evidence? None? . . .
These Republican members are not hypocrites because they’re Gay. They’re hypocrites because they proudly, and sometimes rabidly, market themselves and their positions as being against homosexuality, while engaging in it themselves.
[/QUOTE]
(undescoring mine)
Let’s look at your statements and mine:
[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican.
[/quote]
Clearly, those homosexuals who loudly and openly condemn homosexuality and work to restrict the rights of homosexuals while continuing to act on their own sexual impulses are hypocrites. However, that does not accurately translate into any sort of condemnation of Republicans as Republicans for hypocrisy. Probably a majority of Republicans engaged in actions to restrict the rights of homosexuals are straight (and a few Republicans do not make any serious effort to restrict homosexual freedoms). Further, I have seen no “closing the ranks” among the Republicans when one of their number is outed, attempting to rationalize the actions of those persons. The party has, in my memory, universally told their homosexual colleagues to go away.
Now, I realize that your wording was an attempt at a literary allusion, but it remains true that your brush was too wide. It is simply not true that Republicans, as a class, embody the very essence of hypocrisy, (except to the extent that they share such attribute with their Democrat colleagues–along with their political associates in the minor parties or the parties of other nations), particularly, when the people against whom you are railing are a minoriy of the party you are condemning.
I’ve got no problem with people pointing and laughing when a bigot is hoist by his own petard, but I don’t see much point in extending claims of “hypocrisy” to others who may be perfectly solid bigots with no hypocrisy in their constitutions.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I really don’t want hypervigilance when it comes to patrolling the sexual morality of others, but I wonder if the Democrats are heading toward a situation where there are few sexual matters they will get upset about as a party.
[/QUOTE]
The purpose of a political party is to elect its people into government positions. There is no legitimate reason why sexual matters per se* have anything to do with governance.
*Of course, sexual conduct can, in particular cases, be associated with corruption, abuse of authority, betrayal of trust, etc. In such cases, the latter and not the former are the issues of proper concern.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
While they stood right next to Republicans in the Packwood expulsion, when it came to the Bill Clinton matter, things split along party lines. I really don’t want to reopen that wound, but let’s remember that Clinton admitted to what amounted to actionable offenses under sexual harassment law.
[/QUOTE]
But what was the reaction for the Nixon thing?
The Paula Jones case was dismissed for lack of merit. Not only that but you said Clinton “admitted to” sexual harrassment. He admitted nothing whatever in the Jones case.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The Paula Jones case was dismissed for lack of merit. Not only that but you said Clinton “admitted to” sexual harrassment. He admitted nothing whatever in the Jones case.
[/QUOTE]
Rather a simplistic summary of the events, isn’t it? It leaves out the fines for contempt of court, the disbarment, and the financial settlement in return for the dropping of the appeal of the suit’s dismissal.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Rather a simplistic summary of the events, isn’t it? It leaves out the fines for contempt of court, the disbarment, and the financial settlement in return for the dropping of the appeal of the suit’s dismissal.
[/QUOTE]
Clinton accepted being disbarred in return for having Paula Jones’ appeal dismissed?
