Log Cabin Republicans

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

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

Well, if I have to actually replace the nouns I will...

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.

Your share the same attitude towards the New Testament as you do towards me.  Basically, anyone who adheres to ALL the teachings of the New Testament, you have a problem with...Isn't that correct?!

[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.

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

It is clear that you are trying to cover up for the fact that you wrongly attributed what Opebo said to me.

I didn't confuse you with Opedo - I don't use that deep of arguments with him.  I try to limit my comments to him to one or two sentences.

I found your comments along the same lines as Progress', that is why I copied my reply to him and used it to reply to you.

---

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 really encourage it ...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.

Even though I believe your logic is riddled with inconsistencies [1) you disagree with your own Church on the concept of sin, yet you still claim to be Catholic, 2) you disagree with your Church that the bible is the canon (standard) of the faith, 3) by believing the scripture can not be trusted, you basically have no standard to what you adhere, yet you believe the bible’s account that God put on flesh, died, and rose from the dead],...I am more than willing to leave you alone.

In return, I only ask one thing:  Don’t seek The People’s approval of your lifestyle unless you are willing to civilly accept the opinion of The People.

As for judging you by your character…you could have the charity of Mother Theresa and I still would NOT place my stamp of approval on your desire to marry your sibling…you could have the charity of Mother Theresa and I still would NOT place my stamp of approval on your desire to commit adultery …you could have the charity of Mother Theresa and I still would NOT place my stamp of approval on your desire to marry the same sex ….Excellence in a multitude of areas does NOT automatically justify acceptance of any and every behavior.

[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

[Storebought]

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

[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.

[dazzleman]

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.

So I guess that means John Kerry came out for gay marriage in 2004?

Both parties have supported what you call "inequality" against gays.  I don't happen to think it's inequality to reserve marriage for a man and a woman.  And nobody is talking about banning gay relationships.

Until very recently, the idea of legalizing gay marriage wasn't even a thought.  You have a very one-dimensional view of things.

[Alcon]

I love them as people but hate their sin of being a homo. Being a fag is not natural. You can not reproduce that way, fool.

I think they probably know that.

For loving them, you sure call them some rather horrible names!  You could hate the sin but be respectful of the sinner's humanity.  Do you think you'll convert someone by calling them a "fag" or "homo"?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I love them as people but hate their sin of being a homo. Being a fag is not natural. You can not reproduce that way, fool.

You know its kinda ironic that you have a picture of Reagan in your signature, and support of Reagan was one of the reasons why Log Cabin was founded in the late 70's.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

We do need their gay votes, however.

At least with gay votes, you don't end up with pregnant chads.

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

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.

The general public is The People.  If homosexuals in this country want the approval of the 'The People', then they need to civilly accept the opinion of 'The People'.

---

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

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

And as I have said, the label is illogical since I uphold without bias the same standard to adultery, fornication, lying, murder, stealing, etc, etc, etc.

And I am not like you, who childishly thinks religion is a cafeteria where you can accept only what makes you happy and make up the rules as you prefer, all the while being deceived that you can fudge your way to salvation.

2Tim 2:5 If anyone competes as an athlete, he does not receive the victor's crown unless he competes according to the rules.  

Gal 6:7-8 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

[??????????]

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.

The main reason that blacks left the GOP in the 50's is due to the fact that Republicans were largely ignoring their requests. The book Southern Politics by V.O. Key goes into great depths about this subject. Really by the time the solid south switched over to GOP many southern blacks had already left the party. The fault for the switch is on the main leaders of the GOP in the late 40's for almost completely ignoring the black membership and taking the black vote for granted.

[A18]

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.

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Misguided.  Its like a black person trying to join the Democratic Party in Alabama in 1900.

Maybe it was.  As early as 1935, black democrats were being elected to Congress - still well within the era of the dixiecrat influence.

The influence of the "Religious Right" will wane and things will change yet again.  Maybe someday 90% of gays will vote Republican

Blacks liked FDR, who was not a dixiecrat.

[opebo]

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?

What I am objecting to is your assinine claim that your subjective preference is an objective morality, you poor fever-brained cultist.

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.

The general public is The People.  If homosexuals in this country want the approval of the 'The People', then they need to civilly accept the opinion of 'The People'.

I wasn't aware of anyone asking for 'approval' from The People.  I have only heard of individuals seeking their civil rights.  Is approval required for one to be afforded those, jmfcst?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your 'People' are scum, jmfcst, and just because they are members of a cult based on hate doesn't mean they are somehow off the hook for being haters.  That's like saying 'well, I'm a nazi, so my belief system says the Jews are bad and should be gassed, but I don't personally hate them'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, yes, go ahead and list everything you subjectively dislike.  It does nothing to support your arguments.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All that is pure fantasy, jmfcst.  Your salvation is pablum for dumbs.

[A18]

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

[opebo]

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

Oh?  I believe he supports harming murderers, thieves, liars, and me.  Where does this crazy cult draw the line? 

By the way, Philip, your actions are too insipid to inspire hate, you suburban turd.

[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.

[A18]

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.'

[opebo]

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.

It makes far more sense to equate the religious with murderers than the gays with murderers.    

[A18]

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.

And?

[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.

[A18]

Stealing a pack of gum is sin. So is murder. I don't think anyone's equating the two, other than saying they both fall into this broad category.