Remember when......

[Bonzi]

Which Republican politicians were "ruined" for being gay?

Larry Craig springs to mind.

Larry Craig served out the rest of his term, and now runs a lucrative lobbying firm.

Not exactly what I would call "ruined".

Yet those so passionate about "gay rights" should have been there....
Much more important, saving a career than having a wedding cake, no?

Why should the LGBT community have supported a politician that didn't support them?

what's more important, the cause or the politics?

 

[Bonzi]

.... wasn't that long ago when politician's careers were ruined for coming out of the closet or being exposed as being "gay".

If I were one of them I would be PISSED because now they would be immortalized and maybe even be given an award for bravery!

Yep and I can remember when it was still socially acceptable to say 'N*gger'.

Lots of things have changed for the better.

Really? Is that a fair comparison? Please explain....

 

[Seawytch]

Which Republican politicians were "ruined" for being gay?

Larry Craig springs to mind.

Larry Craig served out the rest of his term, and now runs a lucrative lobbying firm.

Not exactly what I would call "ruined".

Yet those so passionate about "gay rights" should have been there....
Much more important, saving a career than having a wedding cake, no?

Why should the LGBT community have supported a politician that didn't support them?

what's more important, the cause or the politics?

What? You need to be specific. Name names and explain how anyone was supposed to "support" these individuals. Who do YOU think the gay community should have "supported" when they were allegedly outed or outed themselves? Stop being vague since each case is unique.

Larry Craig never came out as gay so there is nothing to support. There is no support for anonymous sex in restrooms.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Which Republican politicians were "ruined" for being gay?

Larry Craig springs to mind.

Larry Craig served out the rest of his term, and now runs a lucrative lobbying firm.

Not exactly what I would call "ruined".

Yet those so passionate about "gay rights" should have been there....
Much more important, saving a career than having a wedding cake, no?

Why should the LGBT community have supported a politician that didn't support them?

what's more important, the cause or the politics?

The "cause" is the "politics".

What kind of support do you feel that Craig should have received from the LGBT community, but didn't?

 

[Syriusly]

.... wasn't that long ago when politician's careers were ruined for coming out of the closet or being exposed as being "gay".

If I were one of them I would be PISSED because now they would be immortalized and maybe even be given an award for bravery!

Yep and I can remember when it was still socially acceptable to say 'N*gger'.

Lots of things have changed for the better.

Really? Is that a fair comparison? Please explain....

What do I need to explain?

Social conventions change.

In 1965, a person could call Martin Luther King Jr. 'that n*gger" in the majority of households in the United States without anyone shunning them. Not now. Because we grew and changed and made open expression of racial discrimination unacceptable.

In 1965, if a person was outed as being gay, at a minimum they faced the likelihood of being fired from their job. Maybe being kicked out of their apartment- almost certainly kicked out of their church- perhaps shunned by their own family.

Not so much now. Because we grew and changed and made open expression of sexual identity discrimination unacceptable- almost.

 

[Bonzi]

Larry Craig springs to mind.

Larry Craig served out the rest of his term, and now runs a lucrative lobbying firm.

Not exactly what I would call "ruined".

Yet those so passionate about "gay rights" should have been there....
Much more important, saving a career than having a wedding cake, no?

Why should the LGBT community have supported a politician that didn't support them?

what's more important, the cause or the politics?

The "cause" is the "politics".

What kind of support do you feel that Craig should have received from the LGBT community, but didn't?

all I know is that you should be consistent.... trust me, I think both sides are crooked.
I don't blindly follow the Right...

 

[Bonzi]

.... wasn't that long ago when politician's careers were ruined for coming out of the closet or being exposed as being "gay".

If I were one of them I would be PISSED because now they would be immortalized and maybe even be given an award for bravery!

Yep and I can remember when it was still socially acceptable to say 'N*gger'.

Lots of things have changed for the better.

Really? Is that a fair comparison? Please explain....

What do I need to explain?

Social conventions change.

In 1965, a person could call Martin Luther King Jr. 'that n*gger" in the majority of households in the United States without anyone shunning them. Not now. Because we grew and changed and made open expression of racial discrimination unacceptable.

In 1965, if a person was outed as being gay, at a minimum they faced the likelihood of being fired from their job. Maybe being kicked out of their apartment- almost certainly kicked out of their church- perhaps shunned by their own family.

Not so much now. Because we grew and changed and made open expression of sexual identity discrimination unacceptable- almost.

It's wrong to hurt others.
Allowing homosexuals to believe their lifestyle is healthy or OK is WRONG!
They are totally different.

 

[Seawytch]

Larry Craig served out the rest of his term, and now runs a lucrative lobbying firm.

Not exactly what I would call "ruined".

Yet those so passionate about "gay rights" should have been there....
Much more important, saving a career than having a wedding cake, no?

Why should the LGBT community have supported a politician that didn't support them?

what's more important, the cause or the politics?

The "cause" is the "politics".

What kind of support do you feel that Craig should have received from the LGBT community, but didn't?

all I know is that you should be consistent.... trust me, I think both sides are crooked.
I don't blindly follow the Right...

How is there inconsistency? Larry Craig, in his own words, is not gay. He lives with his wife. What are we supposed to support?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Larry Craig served out the rest of his term, and now runs a lucrative lobbying firm.

Not exactly what I would call "ruined".

Yet those so passionate about "gay rights" should have been there....
Much more important, saving a career than having a wedding cake, no?

Why should the LGBT community have supported a politician that didn't support them?

what's more important, the cause or the politics?

The "cause" is the "politics".

What kind of support do you feel that Craig should have received from the LGBT community, but didn't?

all I know is that you should be consistent.... trust me, I think both sides are crooked.
I don't blindly follow the Right...

You seem to resist any attempt I've made to get clarification from you.

What would have been "consistent" to you?

 

[Bonzi]

Yet those so passionate about "gay rights" should have been there....
Much more important, saving a career than having a wedding cake, no?

Why should the LGBT community have supported a politician that didn't support them?

what's more important, the cause or the politics?

The "cause" is the "politics".

What kind of support do you feel that Craig should have received from the LGBT community, but didn't?

all I know is that you should be consistent.... trust me, I think both sides are crooked.
I don't blindly follow the Right...

You seem to resist any attempt I've made to get clarification from you.

What would have been "consistent" to you?

Support the rights of gays no matter what.

 

[Seawytch]

.... wasn't that long ago when politician's careers were ruined for coming out of the closet or being exposed as being "gay".

If I were one of them I would be PISSED because now they would be immortalized and maybe even be given an award for bravery!

Yep and I can remember when it was still socially acceptable to say 'N*gger'.

Lots of things have changed for the better.

Really? Is that a fair comparison? Please explain....

What do I need to explain?

Social conventions change.

In 1965, a person could call Martin Luther King Jr. 'that n*gger" in the majority of households in the United States without anyone shunning them. Not now. Because we grew and changed and made open expression of racial discrimination unacceptable.

In 1965, if a person was outed as being gay, at a minimum they faced the likelihood of being fired from their job. Maybe being kicked out of their apartment- almost certainly kicked out of their church- perhaps shunned by their own family.

Not so much now. Because we grew and changed and made open expression of sexual identity discrimination unacceptable- almost.

It's wrong to hurt others.
Allowing homosexuals to believe their lifestyle is healthy or OK is WRONG!
They are totally different.

Telling a kid that the way they are born is wrong...leads them to kill themselves in alarming numbers. That's the true wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

.... wasn't that long ago when politician's careers were ruined for coming out of the closet or being exposed as being "gay".

If I were one of them I would be PISSED because now they would be immortalized and maybe even be given an award for bravery!

Yep and I can remember when it was still socially acceptable to say 'N*gger'.

Lots of things have changed for the better.

Really? Is that a fair comparison? Please explain....

What do I need to explain?

Social conventions change.

In 1965, a person could call Martin Luther King Jr. 'that n*gger" in the majority of households in the United States without anyone shunning them. Not now. Because we grew and changed and made open expression of racial discrimination unacceptable.

In 1965, if a person was outed as being gay, at a minimum they faced the likelihood of being fired from their job. Maybe being kicked out of their apartment- almost certainly kicked out of their church- perhaps shunned by their own family.

Not so much now. Because we grew and changed and made open expression of sexual identity discrimination unacceptable- almost.

It's wrong to hurt others.
Allowing homosexuals to believe their lifestyle is healthy or OK is WRONG!
They are totally different.

\

Okay it is wrong to hurt others.

You harm homosexuals every time you tell them that they are wrong.

You are harming homosexuals. You are therefore by your own standards- doing wrong.

 

[Bonzi]

.... wasn't that long ago when politician's careers were ruined for coming out of the closet or being exposed as being "gay".

If I were one of them I would be PISSED because now they would be immortalized and maybe even be given an award for bravery!

Yep and I can remember when it was still socially acceptable to say 'N*gger'.

Lots of things have changed for the better.

Really? Is that a fair comparison? Please explain....

What do I need to explain?

Social conventions change.

In 1965, a person could call Martin Luther King Jr. 'that n*gger" in the majority of households in the United States without anyone shunning them. Not now. Because we grew and changed and made open expression of racial discrimination unacceptable.

In 1965, if a person was outed as being gay, at a minimum they faced the likelihood of being fired from their job. Maybe being kicked out of their apartment- almost certainly kicked out of their church- perhaps shunned by their own family.

Not so much now. Because we grew and changed and made open expression of sexual identity discrimination unacceptable- almost.

It's wrong to hurt others.
Allowing homosexuals to believe their lifestyle is healthy or OK is WRONG!
They are totally different.

Telling a kid that the way they are born is wrong...leads them to kill themselves in alarming numbers. That's the true wrong.

We are all born with sinful tendencies.
So if we are born with sinful tendencies I guess you think it is OK to do anything, right?

 

[Syriusly]

Why should the LGBT community have supported a politician that didn't support them?

what's more important, the cause or the politics?

The "cause" is the "politics".

What kind of support do you feel that Craig should have received from the LGBT community, but didn't?

all I know is that you should be consistent.... trust me, I think both sides are crooked.
I don't blindly follow the Right...

You seem to resist any attempt I've made to get clarification from you.

What would have been "consistent" to you?

Support the rights of gays no matter what.

How about supporting the rights of human beings?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why should the LGBT community have supported a politician that didn't support them?

what's more important, the cause or the politics?

The "cause" is the "politics".

What kind of support do you feel that Craig should have received from the LGBT community, but didn't?

all I know is that you should be consistent.... trust me, I think both sides are crooked.
I don't blindly follow the Right...

You seem to resist any attempt I've made to get clarification from you.

What would have been "consistent" to you?

Support the rights of gays no matter what.

How should the LGBT community have "supported" his "rights"?

Be specific.

 

[Bonzi]

.... wasn't that long ago when politician's careers were ruined for coming out of the closet or being exposed as being "gay".

If I were one of them I would be PISSED because now they would be immortalized and maybe even be given an award for bravery!

Yep and I can remember when it was still socially acceptable to say 'N*gger'.

Lots of things have changed for the better.

Really? Is that a fair comparison? Please explain....

What do I need to explain?

Social conventions change.

In 1965, a person could call Martin Luther King Jr. 'that n*gger" in the majority of households in the United States without anyone shunning them. Not now. Because we grew and changed and made open expression of racial discrimination unacceptable.

In 1965, if a person was outed as being gay, at a minimum they faced the likelihood of being fired from their job. Maybe being kicked out of their apartment- almost certainly kicked out of their church- perhaps shunned by their own family.

Not so much now. Because we grew and changed and made open expression of sexual identity discrimination unacceptable- almost.

It's wrong to hurt others.
Allowing homosexuals to believe their lifestyle is healthy or OK is WRONG!
They are totally different.

\

Okay it is wrong to hurt others.

You harm homosexuals every time you tell them that they are wrong.

You are harming homosexuals. You are therefore by your own standards- doing wrong.

Really? The stop telling me my beliefs are wrong cause that it hurting me. You can't play both sides of the fence....

 

[Bonzi]

what's more important, the cause or the politics?

The "cause" is the "politics".

What kind of support do you feel that Craig should have received from the LGBT community, but didn't?

all I know is that you should be consistent.... trust me, I think both sides are crooked.
I don't blindly follow the Right...

You seem to resist any attempt I've made to get clarification from you.

What would have been "consistent" to you?

Support the rights of gays no matter what.

How about supporting the rights of human beings?

Sure ! Anything goes! Let's see how that works!
Guess what.. it won't!

 

[Syriusly]

Yep and I can remember when it was still socially acceptable to say 'N*gger'.

Lots of things have changed for the better.

Really? Is that a fair comparison? Please explain....

What do I need to explain?

Social conventions change.

In 1965, a person could call Martin Luther King Jr. 'that n*gger" in the majority of households in the United States without anyone shunning them. Not now. Because we grew and changed and made open expression of racial discrimination unacceptable.

In 1965, if a person was outed as being gay, at a minimum they faced the likelihood of being fired from their job. Maybe being kicked out of their apartment- almost certainly kicked out of their church- perhaps shunned by their own family.

Not so much now. Because we grew and changed and made open expression of sexual identity discrimination unacceptable- almost.

It's wrong to hurt others.
Allowing homosexuals to believe their lifestyle is healthy or OK is WRONG!
They are totally different.

Telling a kid that the way they are born is wrong...leads them to kill themselves in alarming numbers. That's the true wrong.

We are all born with sinful tendencies.
So if we are born with sinful tendencies I guess you think it is OK to do anything, right?

Frankly I don't believe in your 'sin' nor do I believe that any child is born with sin.

I think it is okay for adults to do pretty much anything that does not harm others. Adults can have sex with other consenting adults. Adults can play violent sports with other consenting adults- but they can't walk up and punch a guy on the street. Children cannot consent- to have sex, to be punched by an adult etc.

Not a particularly hard concept.

 

[Bonzi]

what's more important, the cause or the politics?

The "cause" is the "politics".

What kind of support do you feel that Craig should have received from the LGBT community, but didn't?

all I know is that you should be consistent.... trust me, I think both sides are crooked.
I don't blindly follow the Right...

You seem to resist any attempt I've made to get clarification from you.

What would have been "consistent" to you?

Support the rights of gays no matter what.

How should the LGBT community have "supported" his "rights"?

Be specific.

Picket. Stand up for him. Like they would do for anyone else.
But you know, forcing a Christian couple to bake a cake is so much more important....

 

[Syriusly]

Yep and I can remember when it was still socially acceptable to say 'N*gger'.

Lots of things have changed for the better.

Really? Is that a fair comparison? Please explain....

What do I need to explain?

Social conventions change.

In 1965, a person could call Martin Luther King Jr. 'that n*gger" in the majority of households in the United States without anyone shunning them. Not now. Because we grew and changed and made open expression of racial discrimination unacceptable.

In 1965, if a person was outed as being gay, at a minimum they faced the likelihood of being fired from their job. Maybe being kicked out of their apartment- almost certainly kicked out of their church- perhaps shunned by their own family.

Not so much now. Because we grew and changed and made open expression of sexual identity discrimination unacceptable- almost.

It's wrong to hurt others.
Allowing homosexuals to believe their lifestyle is healthy or OK is WRONG!
They are totally different.

\

Okay it is wrong to hurt others.

You harm homosexuals every time you tell them that they are wrong.

You are harming homosexuals. You are therefore by your own standards- doing wrong.

Really? The stop telling me my beliefs are wrong cause that it hurting me. You can't play both sides of the fence....

That was your definition- not mine.

I am fine with you having your opinions and your beliefs- but if you express either in a way that I disagree with, I will express my opinion. If you suffer mental anguish by my response, its not my problem.