Rise of the "HomoCon"

Brian Defferding said:
Anyone that believes homosexuality is immoral, then Ron Paul is not your guy.
Click to expand...

Really? I never heard Ron Paul say anything about whether or not homosexuality is moral. Based on his support of DOMA (defense of marriage act), he hasn't exactly signed up with the gay rights crowd either. (Although it's possible to support gay rights and still think it's immoral.)

By the way, my fiancee is bisexual and Christian, we are open to multiple partners when it comes to sex, and we probably have a healthier and happier relationship than many traditional Christian relationships so far. We know our relationship works for us and may not work for other people, that's why we don't force our lifestyle on other couples.

It would be wise for the homophobic to understand this as well.
Click to expand...

Great. Fine. Wonderful. I'm happy for you. (Seriously). But saying "Ron Paul is not your guy" to people who may disagree makes no sense.
 
jmdrake said:
Really? I never heard Ron Paul say anything about whether or not homosexuality is moral. Based on his support of DOMA (defense of marriage act), he hasn't exactly signed up with the gay rights crowd either. (Although it's possible to support gay rights and still think it's immoral.)

Great. Fine. Wonderful. I'm happy for you. (Seriously). But saying "Ron Paul is not your guy" to people who may disagree makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Well, the "rights" thing is a problem. I don't want "special" rights. I'll settle for the rights I naturally have not being trampled all over. I don't need special laws, days, parades, television channels, etc.. That goes for anything that makes me part of a "group."

Dr. Paul is generally a live-and-let-live kind of guy, so I doubt he'd be quick to come out and blame society's woes on the "cancer" of homosexuality. Of course, he's also a gentleman, which means he's very unlikely to start talking about sex (straight or otherwise) at great length. I think that's where the "Ron Paul's not your guy" idea comes in. People who want to exclude homosexuals from the movement based purely on "what" they are, would probably butt heads with the guy.

I would put it under the category of his having bigger fish to fry. He probably wishes the biggest problem facing the country WERE whether or not there should be a gay pride parade from time to time, to which his response would very likely be that it's up to the people organizing it, the people who can view it, and the people on whose property the parade would take place.
 
TonySutton said:
I miss the part where that article speaks in a manner which would be considered neoconservative.
Click to expand...

Praising a speech by a foreign politician, most notably Israel? That's neoconservative by definition which includes fanatical support for Israel. Also this talk of "radical Islam" like it's some kind of threat to anybody is pure neoconservative.
 
MelissaWV said:
Well, the "rights" thing is a problem. I don't want "special" rights. I'll settle for the rights I naturally have not being trampled all over. I don't need special laws, days, parades, television channels, etc.. That goes for anything that makes me part of a "group."

Dr. Paul is generally a live-and-let-live kind of guy, so I doubt he'd be quick to come out and blame society's woes on the "cancer" of homosexuality. Of course, he's also a gentleman, which means he's very unlikely to start talking about sex (straight or otherwise) at great length. I think that's where the "Ron Paul's not your guy" idea comes in. People who want to exclude homosexuals from the movement based purely on "what" they are, would probably butt heads with the guy.

I would put it under the category of his having bigger fish to fry. He probably wishes the biggest problem facing the country WERE whether or not there should be a gay pride parade from time to time, to which his response would very likely be that it's up to the people organizing it, the people who can view it, and the people on whose property the parade would take place.
Click to expand...

There's a huge difference between someone who thinks something is "immoral" and someone who blames society's woes on the "cancer of homosexuality.

Let's shift gears for a second. I think just most people can agree that a group like NAMBLA is immoral. But is NAMBLA the cause of everything that's wrong in America? I don't think so. Now true, NAMBLA also promotes things that are still criminalized and most people agree should be. So how about drugs? I don't think drug use is "moral". But I'm not for putting people in prison over it. Same for prostitution. Just because someone doesn't agree with a particular behavior doesn't mean he or she wants to criminalize it.

As for the gay marriage thing....I personally go back and forth on it. I think the best think change the nature of the debate by decoupling benefits from employment. If I have an IRA I can leave it to whoever I want. If I can get the same tax benefit for buying insurance on my own that I can getting it through my employer, then marriage is no longer such a big deal for healthcare either. The rest of the stuff (hospital visitation, inheritance etc) could be settled by a standard form contract.

But the bottom line is that I don't see how someone can honestly say people who have a different view on the morality of homosexuality don't belong in the Ron Paul movement, when Ron Paul voted in a way that most gay activists do not support. Even from a states rights position, DOMA is a bit sketchy since it's a way around the "full faith and credit" clause. Do you honestly think Ron Paul would say "If you actually believe marriage is between a man and a woman then don't vote for me"? I don't. I could be wrong. Gays should certainly not be pushed out of the Ron Paul movement. But neither should people who still think it's immoral. I don't think a prerequisite for working together is that we all accept what everyone else does in private as "moral". At the end of the day I'm not God so what I think about morality doesn't really anyway. Plus almost everyone fails to live up to their own moral ideals.
 
I don't really have a problem with gay marriage. They can do whatever their gay hearts desire.

I just plain don't like them. Get them the hell away from me! Although I do have fantasies involving me converting a lesbian and turning her into my little sex kitten. Now that's hot!
 
jmdrake said:
There's a huge difference between someone who thinks something is "immoral" and someone who blames society's woes on the "cancer of homosexuality.

...
Click to expand...

I agree. I suppose my post was more along the lines of hoping there was a "misspeak" in there by the other poster. Sometimes my wishful thinking gets in the way.

I'm the sort who'll battle about this stuff on a logical level, but frankly I'm fine with you thinking whatever you're going to think so long as there's not force behind it to try to make people agree with you. Racists, homophobes, misogynists... go for it. In a real free market, with free flow of ideas and information, you'd be shooting yourself in the foot somewhat, but it'd be your foot to shoot, y'know?


* * *


As for "converting a lesbian," I never got that. If you really find the girl-on-girl to be hot, then why seek someone out specifically to get them to stop activity which a) you find hot, and b) they enjoy greatly?
 
furface said:
Praising a speech by a foreign politician, most notably Israel? That's neoconservative by definition which includes fanatical support for Israel. Also this talk of "radical Islam" like it's some kind of threat to anybody is pure neoconservative.
Click to expand...

No, neoconservatism is the belief in using US economic and military force to bear on other countries to promote democracy. With a touch of big government as long as they are the ones spending the money.

Agreeing with an Israeli on a specific topic is not fanatical support and using the phrase "radical Islam" is the proper way of talking about certain far right Islamic groups instead of grouping all Muslims together, which is why PM Netanyahu used the term.
 
SelfTaught said:
I just plain don't like them. Get them the hell away from me! *snip fantasy*
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt this is true. You could be working alongside me for 10 years and never know I am gay but you would probably go drink a beer with me in an instant or maybe some iced tea.
 
TonySutton said:
I seriously doubt this is true. You could be working alongside me for 10 years and never know I am gay but you would probably go drink a beer with me in an instant or maybe some iced tea.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess that's fine. I just don't like the flaming gays that wear capris and tiny tank tops.

But we are not getting drunk together. I wouldn't want to be in a situation with you where your inhibitions are lower than normal. That's when gays start grabbin dicks and smackin asses.

Not to mention gays are just filthy people. That's why I don't eat in fine dining restaurants. A lot of professional chefs are gay and I don't want their gay fingers in my food.
 
MelissaWV said:
As for "converting a lesbian," I never got that. If you really find the girl-on-girl to be hot, then why seek someone out specifically to get them to stop activity which a) you find hot, and b) they enjoy greatly?
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if it has something to do with his desire for validation of himself and his manhood. An "I'm so awesome I converted a lesbian to want my cock 24 hours a day" kinda thing.
 
MelissaWV said:
I agree. I suppose my post was more along the lines of hoping there was a "misspeak" in there by the other poster. Sometimes my wishful thinking gets in the way.

I'm the sort who'll battle about this stuff on a logical level, but frankly I'm fine with you thinking whatever you're going to think so long as there's not force behind it to try to make people agree with you. Racists, homophobes, misogynists... go for it. In a real free market, with free flow of ideas and information, you'd be shooting yourself in the foot somewhat, but it'd be your foot to shoot, y'know?


* * *


As for "converting a lesbian," I never got that. If you really find the girl-on-girl to be hot, then why seek someone out specifically to get them to stop activity which a) you find hot, and b) they enjoy greatly?
Click to expand...

Yeah! The "free marketplace of ideas". My point about that somehow got lost in the mix. Strictly speaking politically we "shoot ourselves in the foot" with a large part of the republican electorate if our "free marketplace of ideas" includes endorsing GOPride. That may be a principled stance. It's just not going to win a lot of votes here in Tennessee. At least not from what I've. Of course this wasn't an endorsement by Ron Paul or the CFL so I suppose it doesn't matter. But politically speaking, welcoming GOPride is no less damaging than wearing a "Re-investigate 9/11" button.

As far SelfTaught's fantasy, you're actually expecting male sexual fantasies to be logical? :p
 
Last edited:
jmdrake said:
Really? I never heard Ron Paul say anything about whether or not homosexuality is moral. Based on his support of DOMA (defense of marriage act), he hasn't exactly signed up with the gay rights crowd either. (Although it's possible to support gay rights and still think it's immoral.)
Click to expand...

It could be because Ron thinks it should not be a federal issue, while the gay rights groups typically take a position that government should have laws that prevent discrimination regarding private business hiring practices, etc. Who knows *shrug*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Space Force to Launch ‘Actual’ GMTI Sats ‘in the next year’: General
Replies
2
Views
24
Snowball
Snowball
unknown
  • Featured
Marjorie Taylor Greene @Tucker. Izraeli Firsters take aim.
Replies
6
Views
90
unknown
unknown
PAF
Nearly 7,000 Troops, Tanks and Parachute Jumps: Army Confirms Military Parade Coinciding with Trump's Birthday
2
Replies
35
Views
257
Voluntarist
Voluntarist
Anti-Neocon
Caitlin Johnstone - The Word "Terrorist" Becomes More And More Of A Joke By The Day
Replies
5
Views
37
unknown
unknown
PAF
US Issues New Sanctions Targeting Chinese Importers of Iranian Oil
Replies
0
Views
17
PAF
PAF
Back
Top