Remember when......

[theDoctorisIn]

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....

What should they have "picketed"?

Why should the LGBT community have "stood up" for someone who denies being gay and legislates against LGBT rights?

 

[bendog]

Which Republican politicians were "ruined" for being gay?

Larry Craig springs to mind.

Please never use Larry Craig and springs in the same sentence. It creeps me out.

But wouldn't a GOP pol still have career curtailment for being gay. He/she could be Gay or Lesbian and be a democrat.

 

[Bonzi]

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.

I think research would prove you wrong. A lot of "bad" can come from a homosexual relationship. For the individuals and society...

 

[Bonzi]

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....

What should they have "picketed"?

Why should the LGBT community have "stood up" for someone who denies being gay and legislates against LGBT rights?

Because otherwise it is discriminatory.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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....

What should they have "picketed"?

Why should the LGBT community have "stood up" for someone who denies being gay and legislates against LGBT rights?

Because otherwise it is discriminatory.

How so? Could you elaborate?

You're not making any sense.

 

[Bonzi]

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.

I'm not hurt -just using your argument against you....

 

[HappyJoy]

Which Republican politicians were "ruined" for being gay?

Larry Craig springs to mind.

Technically, he was guilty of disorderly conduct, the fact that he's gay just made him a hypocrite. Anyway, he served out his term and chose not to run for re election, I'm not sure he could have gotten through a GOP primary at that point.

Vitter was caught wearing diapers with hookers, and it didn't ruin him.

Being gay is what ruined Craig.

Maybe a gay Republican. However, he decided not to run again, it was in the end his decision.

 

[Bonzi]

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....

What should they have "picketed"?

Why should the LGBT community have "stood up" for someone who denies being gay and legislates against LGBT rights?

Because otherwise it is discriminatory.

How so? Could you elaborate?

You're not making any sense.

Choosing which gays you want to stand up for and which one's not based on political affiliation. Not complicated.

 

[Bonzi]

Which Republican politicians were "ruined" for being gay?

Larry Craig springs to mind.

Technically, he was guilty of disorderly conduct, the fact that he's gay just made him a hypocrite. Anyway, he served out his term and chose not to run for re election, I'm not sure he could have gotten through a GOP primary at that point.

Vitter was caught wearing diapers with hookers, and it didn't ruin him.

Being gay is what ruined Craig.

Maybe a gay Republican. However, he decided not to run again, it was in the end his decision.

Yet the leftist would imply that they were "harassed" into doing so, or "bullied"....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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....

What should they have "picketed"?

Why should the LGBT community have "stood up" for someone who denies being gay and legislates against LGBT rights?

Because otherwise it is discriminatory.

How so? Could you elaborate?

You're not making any sense.

Choosing which gays you want to stand up for and which one's not based on political affiliation. Not complicated.

According to Larry Craig, he's not gay.

And again - how should they have "stood up" for him, anyway?

 

[Bonzi]

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....

What should they have "picketed"?

Why should the LGBT community have "stood up" for someone who denies being gay and legislates against LGBT rights?

Because otherwise it is discriminatory.

How so? Could you elaborate?

You're not making any sense.

Choosing which gays you want to stand up for and which one's not based on political affiliation. Not complicated.

According to Larry Craig, he's not gay.

And again - how should they have "stood up" for him, anyway?

Not sure, but again, that is not my cause and, I don't claim to have all the answers.
I did however, bring up a point to be considered.

I think our society looks ridiculous either way, I'm personally GLAD they were not "championed" to be honest

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What should they have "picketed"?

Why should the LGBT community have "stood up" for someone who denies being gay and legislates against LGBT rights?

Because otherwise it is discriminatory.

How so? Could you elaborate?

You're not making any sense.

Choosing which gays you want to stand up for and which one's not based on political affiliation. Not complicated.

According to Larry Craig, he's not gay.

And again - how should they have "stood up" for him, anyway?

Not sure, but again, that is not my cause and, I don't claim to have all the answers.
I did however, bring up a point to be considered.

I think our society looks ridiculous either way, I'm personally GLAD they were not "championed" to be honest

So you think they should have done something to "support" him, but you can't say what that should have been.

Could it be that you're looking for a rhetorical "gotcha" moment, rather than "considering a point"?

 

[Bonzi]

Because otherwise it is discriminatory.

How so? Could you elaborate?

You're not making any sense.

Choosing which gays you want to stand up for and which one's not based on political affiliation. Not complicated.

According to Larry Craig, he's not gay.

And again - how should they have "stood up" for him, anyway?

Not sure, but again, that is not my cause and, I don't claim to have all the answers.
I did however, bring up a point to be considered.

I think our society looks ridiculous either way, I'm personally GLAD they were not "championed" to be honest

So you think they should have done something to "support" him, but you can't say what that should have been.

Could it be that you're looking for a rhetorical "gotcha" moment, rather than "considering a point"?

Nah, I just thought of something and threw it up on the USMB for discussion... I am not that arrogant to think I "got" anyone.... I am pretty open minded and not afraid to admit I when I am wrong or need to consider another view point.

 

[HappyJoy]

Which Republican politicians were "ruined" for being gay?

Larry Craig springs to mind.

Technically, he was guilty of disorderly conduct, the fact that he's gay just made him a hypocrite. Anyway, he served out his term and chose not to run for re election, I'm not sure he could have gotten through a GOP primary at that point.

Vitter was caught wearing diapers with hookers, and it didn't ruin him.

Being gay is what ruined Craig.

Maybe a gay Republican. However, he decided not to run again, it was in the end his decision.

Yet the leftist would imply that they were "harassed" into doing so, or "bullied"....

"The leftist"

Fuck you.

Larry Craig is/was a hypocrite, another dipshit filled his seat, life moves on.