Will any straight Republican in office please stand up?

[Amianthus]

No, because if he were gay he'd want homosexuals to be treated as a different class of citizen.

Just like a black politician would want blacks to be treated as a different class of citizen, right?

Women who are against women serving in combat positions in the military are hypocrites?

[kimba1]

maybe not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cohn


quite afew outed politians tend to be anti-gay

[_JS]

Women who are against women serving in combat positions in the military are hypocrites?

Do they tend to be against women marrying as well?

[kimba1]

I just thought women are just given better treatment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Smith

if a man did the samething,it`s doubtful he`ll get the same results

[_JS]

I just thought women are just given better treatment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Smith

if a man did the samething,it`s doubtful he`ll get the same results

That's a different debate kimba. Women are given different treatment because quite clearly they are different, especially in terms of childbirth. I'm not sure you can make the argument that they are given better treatment on the whole than men.

[Amianthus]

Do they tend to be against women marrying as well?

Quite a few are against women marrying women. I'm sure we can dig up plenty of gays who are against marriage, but would like to see civil unions.

[_JS]

Do they tend to be against women marrying as well?

Quite a few are against women marrying women. I'm sure we can dig up plenty of gays who are against marriage, but would like to see civil unions.

I think you knew what I meant. Craig has not indicated his support for civil unions within his home state either.

[Amianthus]

I think you knew what I meant. Craig has not indicated his support for civil unions within his home state either.

He has publically stated that he feels states can provide civil unions. Have you got a quote to contrary?

[Michael Tee]

<<The only people in here I see demonizing homosexuals are liberals.>>

You should broaden your horizons a little bit.  To the Republican platform (Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, "family values" candidates, no anti-discrimination policy for the military) which is all obviously anti-gay.

Here it is in a nutshell:  the Republican Party demonizes gays and actively tries to strip them of Constitutional rights.  The Democratic Party does not.  A Senator belongs to the Republican Party and is publicly anti-gay and privately gay.  Hence, doing in private that which he condemns in public.  Hence, a fucking hypocrite.  Q.E.D.

Side issues:   Civil unions?  A cop-out.  Gays demand (and deserve) full civil rights.  Outting gays?  A red herring.  As Lanya says, the guy outted himself.

[BT]

I disagree , being against the widening of the definition of marriage to include gays or necrophiliacs or animal sodomizers does not necessarily mean you are against long term relationships between gays.

Personally i don't have a problem with civil unions. I don't have a problem with committed gay partners receiving the same legal benefits as a hetero couple, though perhaps the best solution is for the state to treat married individuals the same as singles.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I do not see what the hypocritical Craig has in common with an overweight doctor.

A doctor's job is to give his patient good advice. I don't see where Craig is doing this at all. Is he preaching to homosexuals of their wicked ways?
I don't think he is.

Craig is more like an obese doctor who accepts money for advertising Fatsoburgers. And claims that he is thin.

[sirs]

I do not see what the hypocritical Craig has in common with an overweight doctor.

Simple.....Lanya (and like minds) proclaims Craig a hypocrit because she believes him to be Gay, while he advocates an agenda that isn't considered pro-gay.  An overweight Doctor would be the same type of hypocrit if they advocate an agenda that isn't considered pro-obesity. 

You're welcome in advance

[Michael Tee]

<<I disagree , being against the widening of the definition of marriage to include gays or necrophiliacs or animal sodomizers does not necessarily mean you are against long term relationships between gays.>>

You know and I know that this is not about "widening definitions."  The partisans in this battle have never exhibited any previous interest in lexicography and probably never will, apart from this particular controversy.  As for necrophiliacs or animal sodomizers, perhaps you had better wait till they actually demand legal marriages before responding to the threat.  Oh, my bad!  I forgot I was dealing with Republicans - - they invent the threat first, and THEN they "respond" to it.

Oh, and BTW, here's a little freebie for you - - when the awful threat to America and its values DOES materialize, in the form of necrophiliacs demanding marriage with corpses and animal sodomizers demanding marriage with hamsters, keep this in mind: marriage is first and foremost a consensual relationship.  Oh, no, please, don't mention it - - you're entirely welcome.

<<Personally i don't have a problem with civil unions. I don't have a problem with committed gay partners receiving the same legal benefits as a hetero couple, though perhaps the best solution is for the state to treat married individuals the same as singles.>>

I think civil unions are a cop-out.  The gays want the same treatment as everyone else (the right to marry) not a "special status" for them akin to the "separate but equal" status formerly accorded to blacks in the South.  Equal rights means equal status, for a gay half of a gay couple to a straight half of a straight couple.  Why invent a whole new status for people based purely on sexual orientation when there is already one (marriage) that  will do just fine, thank you?

[BT]

I think civil unions are a cop-out.  The gays want the same treatment as everyone else (the right to marry) not a "special status" for them akin to the "separate but equal" status formerly accorded to blacks in the South.  Equal rights means equal status, for a gay half of a gay couple to a straight half of a straight couple.  Why invent a whole new status for people based purely on sexual orientation when there is already one (marriage) that  will do just fine, thank you?

If you are truly concerned about rights then civil unions address that issue.

For all I care do away with the term marriage and replace it with civil union. or do away with the rights associated with marriage all together.

What business is it of the state what living arrangements people have?

[Michael Tee]

<<For all I care do away with the term marriage and replace it with civil union. or do away with the rights associated with marriage all together.>>

Sure.  Tell all the Republicans their sons and daughters can't get married any more.  Not legally.  Legally, all the law will recognize is a civil union.  It's the new thing.  And it's equal - - because gays can have the exact same thing.  That's REAL Republican family values.  I'd love for that to happen, only to see the looks on Republican faces.  Back in the real world, it ain't gonna happen.  Republicans will continue to  hold anti-gay positions and try to demonstrate how "fair-minded" and unprejudiced they are by espousing "civil unions" - - FOR GAYS, not for "real people."  Just like "Southern moderates" of the 1940s and 50s were in favour of "separate but equal."


<<What business is it of the state what living arrangements people have?>>

None, but as long as they keep a hand in the business, they better make sure that it's run without discrimination.