Log Cabin Republicans

[GOP = Terrorists]

In any case, I think it's ridiculous that anybody would allow their political identification to be dictated solely by their sexuality. 

When you deny someone equality why should they care in any way what your other positions are?

"Oh yeah, we think you're going to hell and that you and your partner are committing an act we feel justifies a constitutional amendment to ban it."

Again its like a black man joining the Democratic Party of Alabama in 1900.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

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.

On the whole, Log Cabin Republicans are not unwelcome in the Party and Party leaders often go out of their way to welcome them - even if that puts them at risk with the religious right crowd.  Its only when they are unwelcoming that you hear about it on the news.

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.

Under Creation theory: God created all mankind equal, regardless of sexual preference, and everyone is deserving of equal treatment.

Under Evolutionary theory: Social darwinists like Hitler murder gays.

Hmm... maybe those "evangelist Intelligent design nutters" are on to something here.  If Christians would bother to actually follow Jesus, the world would be a better place.

I just have an immense dislike for Bush and for the people he surrounds himself with.

Like Mary Cheney?  or is it the gay officials that Bush has appointed that you dislike.

Exactly, why are they Republicans when most of the Republican party hates them and thinks they're going to hell?

Scopebo,

Whether you want to admit it or not, the Republican Party is a secular organization that happens to have religious conservatives as a part of its electoral coalition.  We also happen to have conservative gays and lesbians in our electoral coalition.  There are plenty of Democrats who believe that gays are going to hell and plenty of Republicans who are supportive of equal rights for all Americans.  Around Memphis, where blacks dominate Democratic politics, you would probably find that Democrats have a lower opinion of gay rights than their Republican counterparts.

"Oh yeah, we think you're going to hell and that you and your partner are committing an act we feel justifies a constitutional amendment to ban it."

The Constitutional Amendment regards marriage, not sex.

Again its like a black man joining the Democratic Party of Alabama in 1900.

And once again, some black people had to join the Democratic Party of Alabama (perhaps not in 1900, but certainly by the 50's) in order for it to eventually become what it is today.

[opebo]

Horribly dumb persons.  They show an comical misunderstanding of the economic positions of the Democratic Party as well as a frighteningly self-destructive misunderstanding of the hatred they are bourne by the majority of their fellow Religious Party members.

[Speed of Sound]

theyre really not either, to me anyway. theyre just people, really.

[MODU]

Other:  They are a perfect example of how a two-party system cannot adequately represent the whole voting population.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Exactly, why are they Republicans when most of the Republican party hates them and thinks they're going to hell?

Scoonie, you’re a prime example of a purposely ignorant person.

You claim people like me “hate” them because I believe they’re living a sinful lifestyle, yet you can’t apply that same reasoning to my view of liars, adulterers, fornicators, thieves, etc, etc, etc…The GOP also consists of fornicators, yet you don’t believe I hate them.  The GOP also consists of liars, yet you don’t believe I hate them. The GOP also consists of adulterers, yet you don’t believe I hate them. 

The fact that people like you continue to label us “haters”, even though I have confronted you with your contradictory logic, proves that you are indeed being purposely stupid.

If you had a logical argument, you wouldn’t have to resort to labels.

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

[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

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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

You sound like Spock

I endeavor to be accurate...Nowhere am I so desperately needed as among a forum of illogical humans...Judging by the immoral content of this forum, I believe we have arrived at the early twenty-first century.

[opebo]

You claim people like me “hate” them because I believe they’re living a sinful lifestyle,

I think it is very clear that you hate these persons, and this absurd claim of the existence of 'objective morality' is your excuse for bashing something that you simply subjectively dislike. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, your attitude towards these people is also an emotional rather than a reasoned response.  Presumably it is hate, but it might be something else - perhaps fear.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you probably do hate them.  Certainly you insult them by constantly using terms that not only cry out "I don't like you", but also "you are 'bad'". 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, Scoonie is taking you at face value, and ignoring your appeals to the absurd notion of objective morality and your dirty little book of hate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Look who's talking!  What does logic have to do with thinking homosexuality is 'wrong'?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You accomplished no such feat, and as a religious, your appeal to logic is highly comical. 

[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.

[MODU]

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.)

[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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.)

Agreed. 

So what is the basis for labeling me a "hater" simply because I find their actions objectionable?  Or, do others on this forum agree with opedo's logic: that those who find certain actions objectionable basically hate everyone?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I think it is very clear that you hate these persons, and this absurd claim of the existence of 'objective morality' is your excuse for bashing something that you simply subjectively dislike. 

My bible is an object.  And it is objectively clear that my bible contains, for example, the book of Genesis.

Now, you can call my faith in the bible subjective (much like your subjective dislike of my subjective faith), but my adherence to the bible is objective.

[opebo]

I think it is very clear that you hate these persons, and this absurd claim of the existence of 'objective morality' is your excuse for bashing something that you simply subjectively dislike. 

My bible is an object.  And it is objectively clear that my bible contains, for example, the book of Genesis.

Now, you can call my faith in the bible subjective (much like your subjective dislike of my subjective faith), but my adherence to the bible is objective.

I was referring to your claims that the book contains an objective morality, not questioning the existence of the nasty thing.

[GOP = Terrorists]

The Constitutional Amendment regards marriage, not sex.

Well if you're a true social conservative than one equals the other.  Although I was speaking of Marriage.

And once again, some black people had to join the Democratic Party of Alabama (perhaps not in 1900, but certainly by the 50's) in order for it to eventually become what it is today.

I doubt it.  You show me a black member of the Alabama Democratic Party in 1950 and I'll eat my hat.  It was a sudden influx during the civil rights era when the Democrats ended the New Deal coalition in favor of bringing equality to the oppressed.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I was referring to your claims that the book contains an objective morality, not questioning the existence of the nasty thing.

 

How is your label "nasty" not subjective?

[GOP = Terrorists]

Scoonie, you’re a prime example of a purposely ignorant person.

You claim people like me “hate” them because I believe they’re living a sinful lifestyle, yet you can’t apply that same reasoning to my view of liars, adulterers, fornicators, thieves, etc, etc, etc…

And southern racists didn't hate blacks either.  It was just that "they didn't know their place" or "were biologically inferior" or "were destroying our culture" or a million other spins.

And I personally don't believe it is hatred that drives you.  I believe it is ignorance, guilt, and fear.  I believe that a large percentage of the advocates for anti-homosexual policies in the Republican party act that way because of latent homosexual feelings that scare the crap out of them.  I mean look at all the cases that have come out in the last couple years.  Not only of those advocating anti-homosexual policies being outed but of those who were caught doing MUCH worse things including molesting little boys. 

I think anyone who favors anti-homosexual policies should be hooked up to a lie detector and asked if they have in any way ever fantasized about other men.  I'd bet that 1 out of 3 would get caught lying. =)

[KEmperor]

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

You sound like Spock

I endeavor to be accurate...Nowhere am I so desperately needed as among a forum of illogical humans...Judging by the immoral content of this forum, I believe we have arrived at the early twenty-first century.

I could have used a calendar to tell you that.

[opebo]

I was referring to your claims that the book contains an objective morality, not questioning the existence of the nasty thing.

 

How is your label "nasty" not subjective?

Yes, it is.  And so are your claims about homosexuality.  

[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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Scoonie, you’re a prime example of a purposely ignorant person.

You claim people like me “hate” them because I believe they’re living a sinful lifestyle, yet you can’t apply that same reasoning to my view of liars, adulterers, fornicators, thieves, etc, etc, etc…

And I personally don't believe it is hatred that drives you.  I believe it is ignorance, guilt, and fear.  I believe that a large percentage of the advocates for anti-homosexual policies in the Republican party act that way because of latent homosexual feelings that scare the crap out of them...I think anyone who favors anti-homosexual policies should be hooked up to a lie detector and asked if they have in any way ever fantasized about other men.  I'd bet that 1 out of 3 would get caught lying. =)

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? 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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? 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

How is your label "nasty" not subjective?

Yes, it is.  And so are your claims about homosexuality.  

then why do you have a problem with my opinion if you admit both of our opinions are subjective?

[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?