Log Cabin Republicans

[afleitch]

Freedom Fighters...though a bit misguided.

The fact that they stay put in a party where they often tend to be unwelcome is a gutsy decision, however they are not agenda setters and could probably have more influence if they were members of the Democratic Party. Having said that I do support them in principle and that they are truer to traditions of the Republican Party that the evangelist intelligent design nutters are.

[afleitch]

Freedom Fighters...though a bit misguided.

The fact that they stay put in a party where they often tend to be unwelcome is a gutsy decision, however they are not agenda setters and could probably have more influence if they were members of the Democratic Party. Having said that I do support them in principle and that they are truer to traditions of the Republican Party that the evangelist intelligent design nutters are.

Intelligent design is no more a nuttier idea then Evolution.

Let's not get into that debate, we don;t want this thread to go off on a tangent.

[afleitch]

Freedom Fighters...though a bit misguided.

The fact that they stay put in a party where they often tend to be unwelcome is a gutsy decision, however they are not agenda setters and could probably have more influence if they were members of the Democratic Party. Having said that I do support them in principle and that they are truer to traditions of the Republican Party that the evangelist intelligent design nutters are.

I do think you are being overly harsh on the Republican Party, afleitch.  You are assuming it's nothing but gay-hating fundamentalists, but that is no different than assuming that Michael Moore represents the whole Democratic Party.

I would pay gay people the respect of thinking that they're really no different than the rest of us when it comes to the major issues like taxes, economics, crime, foreign policy, etc.  Therefore, if they find Republican views on these issues more compatible with their own views than those of the Democratic Party, there is no reason they should not be in the Republican Party.

Sorry, im afriad thats not what I was implying though I can see how it can be read that way. What I was implying if that Log Cabinet Republican 'X' was in the Democratic Party, they would have advanced further in their political careers 'IF' thats what they had wanted to achieve.

I certainly don't have a 'harsh' opinion of the Republican Party, I am probably one of the most sympathetic members with a red avatar when it comes to the Republicans. I just have an immense dislike for Bush and for the people he surrounds himself with.

[afleitch]

So, all that being said…How does it feel to have the illogical nature of your mind exposed by a “hater” such as myself? 

You sound like Spock

[afleitch]

Actually a logical argument and one that refrains from using any religious texts and merely looks at science and reason would clearly see that homosexuality is neither wrong nor chosen. May I add that jmfcst is in fact 'illogical' in the traditional sense as he tends to use the bible as the source of his claims. He therefore is a man of faith, not of reason.

[afleitch]

Actually a logical argument and one that refrains from using any religious texts and merely looks at science and reason would clearly see that homosexuality is neither wrong nor chosen.

That would be a factual argument.  You can make a logical argument out of almost anything.  (And, "logic" doesn't mean "correct" for those who need the clarification.)

Yes you're right. I stand corrected.

[afleitch]

I've stopped arguing with jmfcst, I hold little respect for him or his views and I would hate to see how he would treat eitehr a friend or a member of his family who is gay. He is self righteous, someone who seeks shelter in his own shadow. So don't give him the time of day.

[afleitch]

I've stopped arguing with jmfcst, I hold little respect for him or his views and I would hate to see how he would treat eitehr a friend or a member of his family who is gay. He is self righteous, someone who seeks shelter in his own shadow. So don't give him the time of day.

I'll repeat my argument also to you...

So, why didn’t you continue your argument and apply my “hatred” to adulterers, fornicators, liars, thieves, etc, etc, etc?

If you had continued your train of thought, you would have discovered it is not rooted in logic, for even actions that I have engaged in, much less fantasized about, I still find objectionable:  I find lying objectionable, even though I have lied hundreds or thousands of times in the past.  I don’t “fear” that my flesh is corruptible, I know it is. 

And then there are the actions like worshipping Satan, which I have no desire to do and do not fear that I would ever engage in…yet I still find Satanism objectionable.

So the common denominator is NOT fear of my own actions (instead I readily admit that I have not only fantasized doing certain acts, but have also engaged in them); rather the common denominator is my adherence to the teachings of the bible.

So, just be honest with yourself: you’re not labeling me, but the bible.  You find the teachings of the bible “hateful” and those that adhere to its teachings you call “haters”.  Is that not the case? 

I didnt call you a hater! It was Opebo a few posts back. So get 'who posted what' in order before you comment okay?

[afleitch]

It is clear that you are trying to cover up for the fact that you wrongly attributed what Opebo said to me. My attitude to the New Testament is different to my attitude to you. I don't read the bible, I don't pretend I do, most Catholics you will find tend not to, the Church did not realy encourage it   But if you want my belifs then here you go.

I do not believe that the New Testament can or should be interpreted literally. As a student of history I know very well that what is found in the New Testament is nothing more than an edited collection of books or sayings collected around 100-200 years after the death of Christ. Much of what did not make the 'cut' was destroyed or lost but some of it remains and used to be considered heresy as it often contradicted what the NT said.

Thirdly, I decided not to continue arguing with you becasue I believe that you judge me on my sexuality and not on my character so you treat my opinons and beliefs with disregard and disdain as a result. That is really all I have to say on the matter.

[afleitch]

Who are 'The People'? The general public, or by people do you simply mean you? You do not speak for 'The People' you speak only for you so do not think you have the authority to decide what the general public want. Luckily I live in Scotland, where 'The People' here seem to be considerably more tolerant than you.

You know I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt before but for once I actually agree with opebo, you do 'hate' and you revel in it like a pig in the mud. Actually considering I don't live in the USA it really doesn't matter what position you take. God Bless the Atlantic

[afleitch]

Acceptable, so long as they uphold the basic tenants of Republicanism like lower taxes; strong, active military; strict constructionalist judiciary, etc.

Exactly, thanks for bringing this thread back to where it should be.

[afleitch]

And calling The People 'hateful' just because they are following the definition of sin of their religion, is not what I call being civil.

I didn't call the people hateful, I called you hateful. Neither you or I can say we speak for the people though you seem to like to think you can.

As I have said before 'The People' in Scotland have given their consent through their elected officials to civil union and gay adoption. That is their choice and you should accept 'The People's' decision with regards to Scotland.

Besides some of the 'People' may not be Christian, they could be Jewish or Athiest for example, so how could you possibly ever speak for them?

[afleitch]

We do need their gay votes, however. So why don't we take these queers and shoot them up with testosterone, the wonder drug, and turn them into real men, such as me and the Governator.

You are now officially the dumbest member here.

Seconded.

[afleitch]

Jmfcst does not support harming homosexuals. He merely hates their actions; much like those of murders, thieves, liars, and human snot like you.

I refuse to be equated with a murderer.

[afleitch]

Uh, if you were capable of reading properly, you would note that the similarity between his views toward those people and homosexuals is that he hates their actions; not that he 'doesn't want to harm them.'

But does he equate the actions of a gay couple with that of a murderer regardless of whether he wishes them harm or not? That is my concern.

[afleitch]

Jmfcst, I see that once again you have chosen to reply to my post rather than those that preceded. It is nice to know that you acknowlege your own 'sin' as you seem to have decided to speek for society as you see it, not for yourself up until this point.

This thread is about Log Cabin Republicans and I think you should bring the thread back to this point but on a final note you have to accept that morality is not a solid concept, it is fluid and changeable depending on the person. Likewise the concept of 'hate' is also fluid. To me, and I speak only for myself, I view you as hateful and misguided. That is my belief and I am entitled to it. You can hate me and I can hate you but others can love us both, that is how it works. So do not claim to speak for 'The People' as you and I are only speaking for ourselves.

[afleitch]

No, no deal. I'm sick of arguing with you and I don't feel or see the need in quoting bits of the Bible becasue it merely plays into your hands and massages your egotism.

You say I claimed to have studied the Bible well; I said no such thing if you remember. It was not part of my religious Catholic upbringing to read the Bible as I have stated before.  I have no need to prove my beliefs, my beliefs are my own and I have stated them repeatedly, but you have chosen to ignore them. Once again you are claiming I have said things when I have not. I see no need in arguing with a liar as a result.

So rant away. I will not respond do you anymore as you do not show any respect to me or anyone else who disagrees with on this forum. Enjoy the empty room.

[afleitch]

Hawkeye is incredibly funny as well as false. I wonder who he really is?

[afleitch]

Hawkeye is incredibly funny as well as false. I wonder who he really is?

Probably just another homosexual.

Oh and you wouldn't want another one of those now would you jmfcst

[afleitch]

Yeah, post a picture. Let us oggle your supposed immense strength and masculinity

[afleitch]

Pornographic content removed. -Alcon

Um, excuse me, that wasn't pornographic.  If people can have the signatures they have, and if people can post pictures of straight couples kissing, why not homosexual couples?  Get a life.

If it was a mere kiss between two men that showed no gentalia in no way is that pornographic. Offensive to some yes, but not pornographic.

[afleitch]

The picture showed several undressed men. One of the pictures partially showed a penis. And yes I reported it if you have a problem with it, PM me.

I have no problem with that now that I know. No nudity should be allowed whether jokey or not as we have a diverse age range on here. I sound like a prude- but you know what i mean.

[afleitch]

I have to agree. I am not exactly socially liberal material in comparison to alot of 'straight' posters. I am strongly anti-immigration and I don't believe in gay marriage, just civil unions. Quite a lot of gay men and lesbians are fairly conservative. For some all that is 'socially liberal' , (including my ex boyfriend who was a rabid conservative) about them is the belief that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Sadly both liberals and conservatives can tend to ignore this.

[afleitch]

You've changed your tune...almost Read back to your earlier posts.

[afleitch]

Supposedly Lincoln was a gay.

The evidence attempting to prove that is flawed.

I agree, besides sexuality was far more fluid and always was since the time of the Ancient Greeks when most of the Hellenic world was bisexual.