“According to The Daily Caller, though, some think that Coulter has changed her stripes”

And well she should change her stripes…..she’s very thin and everyone knows that stripes make one look thinner…and ….ummmmmmmm……never mind…

LOL…hilarious. Hey Tommy, so do you agree with me that you look just like that character “Spenc” on the sitcom “King of Queens”?

The Character’s name is Spenc Olchin, but in real life his name is Patton Oswalt. Dude you guys are brothers I swear.

I like the illustration.

Spence will never be able to Christopher wonderful Ann .

“The main thing I do is speak on college campuses, which is about the equivalent of speaking at an al-Qaida conference.” Ann Coulter

LOL

I support conservatives regardless of their sexual orientation. I think most conservatives feel that way. It’s only the religious conservatives who make an issue out of GOProud. Having said all that, I thought Ann’s comment about John Edwards was hilarious. It was one of the all time best zingers. Outrage over her joke is nothing more than political correctness run amok.

That’s my gal!

More Liberty said:
LOL…hilarious. Hey Tommy, so do you agree with me that you look just like that character “Spenc” on the sitcom “King of Queens”?

The Character’s name is Spenc Olchin, but in real life his name is Patton Oswalt. Dude you guys are brothers I swear.

PATTON OSWALT IS HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

anyone who is a fan of stand-up comedy should check him out, he’s all over youtube

search for any of the following:

“sky cake” – great take on the origins of religion
“douchiest T-shirt ever” – great take on hipsters
“kill george lucas with a shovel” – will tickle any and all sci-fi nerds

there are so many more, you’ll have to check them out for yourself

and if Tommy looks at all like Patton, I hope he’s just as successful and funny as hell or his love life may be screwed!

I don’t care if you are a homosexual, but I will not condone your lifestyle, nor will I ever believe it it right, other than your right to choose. However what I bothers me is the agenda, to proselytize that anyone who disagrees with your decision as a homosexual male or female is wrong in not accepting your actions and thoughts as normality.

You do indeed have the freedom to choose, that is your right but it does not make it right.
And anyone or any organized social system has the same right to disagree with you; that is called freedom of speech, and it is what this particular Country was founded on.

Much; but not all, of the homosexual community throws the word “Hate” around in the same manner many; again not all, in the African American American community use the word “Racist”. These words have been turned into power words, to force people to either submit or admit that their thinking is wrong or unjustified, otherwise they will be called a hatemonger, or a racist.
Well I for one still believe in freedom of speech. I do not believe in hate-mongering, nor racism but I believe I can disagree with you and prove that your lifestyle or rhetoric is not balanced, nor stable thinking, and I have that right, just as much as anyone.

If the GOP wants to disagree with a majority of the American Public when it comes to the delusion of calling something a majority do not see as normality, then they are out of touch with their constituents. There is actually a very, very small percentage of people who proclaim this lifestyle in these United States, they just happen to be a very loud and power hungry minority.

PS.
I am not talking about the homosexuals who are in the closet and just live their lives the way they choose not lauding their views on others.

Ann Coulter just said she speaks at Al-Quida conferences?

Poor Tommy can’t say something nice about Ann even when he supports her. I’m pretty sure that comment by GOProud Board Chairman Christopher R. Barron had a wee bit more too that would put it into context, but why would Tommy do that?

Chris Jones,

Not true, I am a religious conservative and I support GOProud and Homocon. I’ve done so at Rightwingnews and my Houston Chron blog. Not one religious conservative commenter disagreed with me. If fact, Rightwingnews is sponsoring the event.

Things are not what the liberals and Tommy Christopher would have you believe. Don’t buy into their false narrative. This is politics, not church, and most religious conservatives know this.

Ann Coulter: “The main thing I do is speak on college campuses, which is about the equivalent of speaking at an al-Qaida conference.”

That is milk through the nose funny.

I can’t say I have ever been a Coulter fan, however, every conservative or Republican should be concerned about this. One of the icons of the conservative movement couldn’t pass muster with her own people. This should raise the hair on the back of every neck on the right. When hate-groups dominate any party they end up making that party into a bunch of cannibals eating their own kind. No one is “good” enough for them… gays are just the flavor of the month and an excuse to pontificate and other minorities should be grateful for the temporary delay. As a devout Christian, I am disgusted by what has come to define my faith. A bunch of hateful, nasty, cruel and hypocritical bigots who want to control everyone but themselves. These whack-ohs are driving the faithful out of the church by thousands every year, driving decent Republicans and conservative who are not bigots to leave their party and movement, alienating almost anyone under 50 and attempting to inspect conservative credentials with all the glee of a proctologist. If you need a litmus test for belonging to these groups… how about this one… 100% of the people in my family of origin are veterans (one RAF; one Marine honor man; one Army Captain, bronze star buried at Arlington; one National Guard platoon leader)… I believe in every part of the Bill of Rights (I bare arms exercise my 1st am rights etc.) and the rest of the Constitution; I am a Chistian; a senior citizen; well-off financially. Am I conservative, Republican, Middle, Democrat, progressive or liberal??? Would I pass muster with these folks… NO because I believe whole heartedly that gay Americans deserve equal protection under the law by virtue of our amazing Constitution – for themselves AND their families.

“This should raise the hair on the back of every neck on the right” KMLake

We’re not worried-Ann is a big girl and can take care of herself:

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter responded today to the announcement that WorldNetDaily was dropping her as a speaker for one of their events, calling WorldNetDaily Editor Joseph Farah a “publicity whore” and a “swine.”

http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/18/ann-coulter-to-worldnetdaily-editor-hes-a-swine-and-publicity-whore/

One very sick daughter of Darkness.

Azarkhan said:
“The main thing I do is speak on college campuses, which is about the equivalent of speaking at an al-Qaida conference.” Ann Coulter
LOL

Based on previous conversations, I would have thought a joke like that would strike you as inappropriately making light of the terrorist threat. I wonder if you’d find it as funny if it had come from a Liberal pundit.

CLTstraightguy said:
I don’t care if you are a homosexual, but I will not condone your lifestyle, nor will I ever believe it it right, other than your right to choose. However what I bothers me is the agenda, to proselytize that anyone who disagrees with your decision as a homosexual male or female is wrong in not accepting your actions and thoughts as normality.
You do indeed have the freedom to choose, that is your right but it does not make it right.
And anyone or any organized social system has the same right to disagree with you; that is called freedom of speech, and it is what this particular Country was founded on.
Much; but not all, of the homosexual community throws the word “Hate” around in the same manner many; again not all, in the African American American community use the word “Racist”. These words have been turned into power words, to force people to either submit or admit that their thinking is wrong or unjustified, otherwise they will be called a hatemonger, or a racist.
Well I for one still believe in freedom of speech. I do not believe in hate-mongering, nor racism but I believe I can disagree with you and prove that your lifestyle or rhetoric is not balanced, nor stable thinking, and I have that right, just as much as anyone.
If the GOP wants to disagree with a majority of the American Public when it comes to the delusion of calling something a majority do not see as normality, then they are out of touch with their constituents. There is actually a very, very small percentage of people who proclaim this lifestyle in these United States, they just happen to be a very loud and power hungry minority.
PS.
I am not talking about the homosexuals who are in the closet and just live their lives the way they choose not lauding their views on others.

You obviously don’t understand the issues faced by homosexuals, or their political agenda. They’re not looking for you to accept their lifestyle as normal. They don’t care what you think is normal. Personally, I think people who believe in astrology are borderline nuts, but my thinking that doesn’t impact their lives. Unlike people that believe in astrology, the GLBT community is faced with institutionalized discrimination. I’m not a Liberal or a Conservative, but I believe in freedom, and I believe that all people have a right to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

I also really don’t understand prejudice against homosexuals. I understand the impulse to be fearful and suspicious of people that are different, but anybody can be a homosexual. Two “normal,” heterosexual parents can have a homosexual child. They’re not “others;” they’re our sons and daughters and brothers and sisters.

I found your postscript to be personally offensive to me. You claim to believe in freedom of speech, which is a freedom that I hold sacred, and then turn around and say that you don’t have a problem with homosexuals that don’t exercise that freedom. That sort of reasoning, the “I believe in freedom of speech as long as it’s speech I agree with” kind, is hypocrisy of the worst sort, and inimical to everyone’s freedoms.

“Based on previous conversations, I would have thought a joke like that would strike you as inappropriately making light of the terrorist threat” Dave Be

Anyone who pokes fun at leftist, pompous, full-of-themselves college students has my full support. If Osama himself made fun of college leftists, I’d add him to my Christmas list!

Dave Be said:
Based on previous conversations, I would have thought a joke like that would strike you as inappropriately making light of the terrorist threat. I wonder if you’d find it as funny if it had come from a Liberal pundit.

You obviously don’t understand the issues faced by homosexuals, or their political agenda. They’re not looking for you to accept their lifestyle as normal. They don’t care what you think is normal. Personally, I think people who believe in astrology are borderline nuts, but my thinking that doesn’t impact their lives. Unlike people that believe in astrology, the GLBT community is faced with institutionalized discrimination. I’m not a Liberal or a Conservative, but I believe in freedom, and I believe that all people have a right to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

I also really don’t understand prejudice against homosexuals. I understand the impulse to be fearful and suspicious of people that are different, but anybody can be a homosexual. Two “normal,” heterosexual parents can have a homosexual child. They’re not “others;” they’re our sons and daughters and brothers and sisters.

I found your postscript to be personally offensive to me. You claim to believe in freedom of speech, which is a freedom that I hold sacred, and then turn around and say that you don’t have a problem with homosexuals that don’t exercise that freedom. That sort of reasoning, the “I believe in freedom of speech as long as it’s speech I agree with” kind, is hypocrisy of the worst sort, and inimical to everyone’s freedoms.

Oh, but I do understand.
Please elaborate on the idea of “institutionalized discrimination”
The idea that the homosexual lifestyle is discriminated I see it praised and gratified in the media everyday, and yeah I disagree with it as do many other people and that is our right, just as it is their right to choose that lifestyle.
That is freedom of speech if you think people are being discriminate just because they choose not to support that lifestyle choice, then you my friend are the problem.

I am not saying the entire populace of homosexuals have an agenda, just the militant ones who call everyone hatemongers, or the new power word,”homophobe”. These are the ones who want to justify their behavior.

You want to be homosexual, gay, whatever you want to call it, fine live your life and die as couple, whatever, unless you are not objectionable to constructive criticism and want to change you have the right to do what you want until it harms others, then it becomes everyone’s problem. What you do in the privacy of your residence is up to you. Please just don’t try and vehemently justify it to others who don’t believe the same way you do.

Sorry you are offended by free speech, you can always go to a more socialist Country if you think that is going to help… it won’t but you can.

CLTstraightguy said:
Please elaborate on the idea of “institutionalized discrimination”

The obvious example is gay marriage. Gay’s aren’t afforded the same healthcare benefits options (there is no requirement for companies to offer domestic partner coverage), joint parenting, joint adoption, status as next-of-kin for medical decisions, immigration and residency for partners, inheritance of jointly-owned property through right of survivorship, survivor and other benefits of annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare, joint filing of tax returns, evidentiary immunity, and literally over 1000 other benefits that married couples enjoy. Additionally, members of the LGBT community can be denied employment or housing based on their sexual orientation in many states. Transgendered people are required to identify themselves as the gender they were born with in legal and government documents, like drivers licenses, etc, rather than the gender they identify with. There are also examples of social institutionalized discrimination, but I’ve already answered your question.

CLTstraightguy said:
I am not saying the entire populace of homosexuals have an agenda, just the militant ones who call everyone hatemongers, or the new power word,”homophobe”. These are the ones who want to justify their behavior.

They don’t have to justify their behavior, nor are they trying to. They are trying to be treated as equals. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforces several laws, which protect people from discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex (those are Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964), pregnancy (Pregnancy Discrimination Act), age (Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967), disability (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990), genetic information (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008), and a few other specialized duplications of those groups for specific situations like employment with the federal government. What legitimate excuse is there not to ban discrimination in employment against people based on their sexual orientation?

CLTstraightguy said:
Sorry you are offended by free speech, you can always go to a more socialist Country if you think that is going to help… it won’t but you can.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him not be a bigoted moron.

Mr. Farah says “There is simply no room there for compromisers or for people who accept money from those determined to destroy the moral fabric required for self-governance and liberty.” That is the height of hypocrisy! They have a lineup of speakers who actively supported Bob Dole, George Bush and John McCain, despite their records of funding abortion with government funds, directly attacking free speech in campaigns, implementing huge increases in the size of the federal government, and on and on.

The fact is that An Coulter is hated by the left much more than most of the people on your speaker list precisely because she does NOT compromise her values. If Mr. Farah’s statement is anything more than fluff, there are a lot of compromisers ahead of Ms. Coulter they should be closing the door on.

My speculation (pure speculation) is WND knew they were going to get grief if they kept Ann, and if they dumped her. Perhaps they figured at least if they dumped her, they could get more publicity. At least something out of a lose-lose situation. Whatever their reasons, we know it was NOT because they don’t accept compromisers.

CLTstraightguy said:
I don’t care if you are a homosexual, but I will not condone your lifestyle, nor will I ever believe it it right, other than your right to choose. However what I bothers me is the agenda, to proselytize that anyone who disagrees with your decision as a homosexual male or female is wrong in not accepting your actions and thoughts as normality. You do indeed have the freedom to choose, that is your right but it does not make it right.And anyone or any organized social system has the same right to disagree with you; that is called freedom of speech, and it is what this particular Country was founded on. Much; but not all, of the homosexual community throws the word “Hate” around in the same manner many; again not all, in the African American American community use the word “Racist”. These words have been turned into power words, to force people to either submit or admit that their thinking is wrong or unjustified, otherwise they will be called a hatemonger, or a racist.Well I for one still believe in freedom of speech. I do not believe in hate-mongering, nor racism but I believe I can disagree with you and prove that your lifestyle or rhetoric is not balanced, nor stable thinking, and I have that right, just as much as anyone. If the GOP wants to disagree with a majority of the American Public when it comes to the delusion of calling something a majority do not see as normality, then they are out of touch with their constituents. There is actually a very, very small percentage of people who proclaim this lifestyle in these United States, they just happen to be a very loud and power hungry minority. PS.I am not talking about the homosexuals who are in the closet and just live their lives the way they choose not lauding their views on others.

I assume that you really like heterosexuals who stay in the closet also.

While I will defend your right to have what I believe is a misguided belief, I do not believe that it is any of your (or my) business if gays choose to marry. The idea that marriage is between a man and a woman because that is the way it always has been is ludicrous. That’s like saying (in the 1950s) that segregation is OK, since it always has been, and interracial marriage is wrong (as many Christians felt). If gays want to marry, I don’t care. And you shouldn’t either. It we as heterosexuals can marry, then why can’t gays?

Dave Be said:
The obvious example is gay marriage. Gay’s aren’t afforded the same healthcare benefits options (there is no requirement for companies to offer domestic partner coverage), joint parenting, joint adoption, status as next-of-kin for medical decisions, immigration and residency for partners, inheritance of jointly-owned property through right of survivorship, survivor and other benefits of annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare, joint filing of tax returns, evidentiary immunity, and literally over 1000 other benefits that married couples enjoy. Additionally, members of the LGBT community can be denied employment or housing based on their sexual orientation in many states. Transgendered people are required to identify themselves as the gender they were born with in legal and government documents, like drivers licenses, etc, rather than the gender they identify with. There are also examples of social institutionalized discrimination, but I’ve already answered your question.

They don’t have to justify their behavior, nor are they trying to. They are trying to be treated as equals. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforces several laws, which protect people from discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex (those are Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964), pregnancy (Pregnancy Discrimination Act), age (Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967), disability (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990), genetic information (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008), and a few other specialized duplications of those groups for specific situations like employment with the federal government. What legitimate excuse is there not to ban discrimination in employment against people based on their sexual orientation?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him not be a bigoted moron.

Friend they are equal, they can do anything they want in their own privacy. This is not about equality, it is about acceptance. As far as marriage goes, I reiterated this in another post, but I will re-post it.

The problem with Homosexual Marriage, is this. This is not just about allowing same-sex couples to have a legal bond, because marriage is not just a social, or legal institution, but a religious one.

Sexual Orientation is an agenda that is being pretty much rammed down many people and institutions throats.
Homosexual marriages will open up a whole new can of worms when it comes to Legal, Social, and Religions Institutions. It changes the normal dimensions of Family and Social Structure.

So what is the problem? If it was just about the whole union thing or (Equal Rights) then why make a big deal out of it?? Be Gay, have your life, live together, die together, just don’t expect others to respect or condone your lifestyle!

But you see this isn’t about marriage, this is about Justification, and I am sorry, but there are a good many out there (Many Faiths included) who vehemently disagree with your choice! Get over it, that is what freedom of speech and religion is all about, where as many use the Race Card, you use the Hate Card. It’s not hate, it’s a difference of opinion, and conviction. Live your life, your ranting and raving is not going to change peoples minds or hearts for that matter, you know what will though? A change in your lifestyle and understanding why those others have strong convictions about it.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him not be a bigoted moron

Here is what Webster says a bigot is in the original 1828 Edition of Websters Dictionary:
1. A person who is obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, practice or ritual. The word is sometimes used in an enlarged sense, for a person who is illiberally attached to any opinion, or system of belief; as a bigot to the Mohammedan religion; a bigot to a form of government.

So if a bigot is someone who is wedded to a religious creed, opinion, practice, or ritual then you are calling a lot of American’s, nay people in this World a Bigot.

I would gladly follow a truth that has been around read, lived, by many people much wiser than you or I and used to govern then yours or anyone Else’s World view.

You can talk to a horses hind quarters too, but it is not going to talk back, it only stinks.

“This is not just about allowing same-sex couples to have a legal bond, because marriage is not just a social, or legal institution, but a religious one.”
Right, and governments can’t deny legal rights because of religion. Religion should have the right to continue their vitriolic hatred against homosexuality and not conduct gay marriages even if its legal though, unfortunately that will only lead to religion’s continued erosion and antiquity.

“Sexual Orientation is an agenda that is being pretty much rammed down many people and institutions throats.”
You’re just sad that every poll more and more of America is accepting gay marriage. It’s maybe just ten years now before a new tolerant and civil youth grow older and welcome it with open arms. Isn’t evolution great!

“Homosexual marriages will open up a whole new can of worms when it comes to Legal, Social, and Religions Institutions. It changes the normal dimensions of Family and Social Structure.”
Not really. It only makes a few people’s life a little happier. I don’t see any mad chaos and panic in all the other developed countries its being legalized, I just see shiny happy people holding hands.

CLTstraightguy said:
The problem with Homosexual Marriage, is this. This is not just about allowing same-sex couples to have a legal bond, because marriage is not just a social, or legal institution, but a religious one.

The Catholic Church doesn’t recognize a marriage that hasn’t been performed by a Catholic priest. Some other religions have similar restrictions. The Catholic Church also doesn’t recognize a marriage if one of the members has been divorced before, unless the Church has granted an annulment of the previous marriage. They are free to do this because marriage IS a religious insitution. However, it’s also a civil institution. A Catholic who gets divorced can remarry and enjoy all the legal benefits, despite their marriage not being recognized by the Church. The Catholic Church (and other churches) should be free not to perform or recognize gay marriages, but the government is a different story.

CLTstraightguy said:
So what is the problem? If it was just about the whole union thing or (Equal Rights) then why make a big deal out of it?? Be Gay, have your life, live together, die together, just don’t expect others to respect or condone your lifestyle!

Civil Unions, where allowed, do not offer the same set of benefits as marriage. For example, people in a civil union can’t file a joint federal income tax return. Beyond that, even if they DID have all of the same legal benefits, calling it a “Civil Union” smacks of “separate but equal.” Your position also ignores the lack of equal opportunity in housing and employment that is not afforded to homosexuals.

CLTstraightguy said:
But you see this isn’t about marriage, this is about Justification, and I am sorry, but there are a good many out there (Many Faiths included) who vehemently disagree with your choice! Get over it, that is what freedom of speech and religion is all about, where as many use the Race Card, you use the Hate Card. It’s not hate, it’s a difference of opinion, and conviction. Live your life, your ranting and raving is not going to change peoples minds or hearts for that matter, you know what will though? A change in your lifestyle and understanding why those others have strong convictions about it.

Your whole position is predicated on homosexuality being a “choice.” This is a silly and ignorant position repudiated by legitimate research. Besides that, would you call Louis Farrakhan’s characterization of Judaism a “gutter religion” racist or hate speech? He’s a religious leader, does that make his antisemitism not hate but difference of opinion and conviction? In any case, I don’t care whether people “like” homosexuality, I just want the government to afford homosexuals the same rights and protections as other people.

CLTstraightguy said:
Here is what Webster says a bigot is in the original 1828 Edition of Websters Dictionary:
1. A person who is obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, practice or ritual. The word is sometimes used in an enlarged sense, for a person who is illiberally attached to any opinion, or system of belief; as a bigot to the Mohammedan religion; a bigot to a form of government.
So if a bigot is someone who is wedded to a religious creed, opinion, practice, or ritual then you are calling a lot of American’s, nay people in this World a Bigot.

You quoted the definition which includes “obstinately and unreasonably” and then left it out of your characterization. Thats…well, about what I’d expect from ya.

The quote is obstinately and unreasonably? What the heck are you on?
No, my friend the joke is on you, homosexuality is a choice, just like anything else, contrary to many skewed proclamations, with a nice slant the idea that you are born homosexual is about as true as that if you are born in a McDonald’s you are a hamburger, you putting me in Farrakahn’s boat just shows how far out to sea you are. What is wrong with you? Just because someone thinks homosexual behavior is wrong, you label them as a hatemonger? You’re an idiot to do so. And it proves the fact that you people aren’t interested in balance, but rather just your own opinion. Hitler did the same thing, not saying you are Hitler, but your credence goes right along with it.
Homosexuals have rights, just as anyone else, the only difference is when you start to tie a lifestyle into a race it becomes it’s own force, and manipulative wave to force others to come to the conclusion that what you do is right, and as I said before just because you have a right, does not make it right. Homosexuality despite the foolish rhetoric IS NOT A RACE. It is A CHOICE OF LIFESTYLE.

“. They are free to do this because marriage IS a religious institution.” exactly glad we agree on something, and yes it is indeed a Civil Institution as well and I already discussed that.
You have negated much of my original post and the idea that this injunction not only destroys the sanctity of marriage between a man and a women to procreate and have a balanced family, but it also creates problems for the Country, in the case that should there be homosexual marriages allowed in one State, what if another State, doesn’t and won’t recognize it? What if the homosexual couple moves there? Then you have a problem, by messing with State Rights, and yes I believe in the Republic, it is one thing that keeps us balance and different from the rest of the World.

In any case, I don’t care whether people “like” homosexuality, I just want the government to afford homosexuals the same rights and protections as other people.”

Exactly you don’t care, and friend the Government is the People, but people like you, you want this to be a totalitarian regime that forces people to do it’s bidding no matter how much opposition is against it.

I am not against homosexuals, nor their lives, I am against their agenda, to force others by positioning people and social organizations as hatemongers, cause they refuse to accept their lifestyle, but you on the other hand seem devote and trying to twist other peoples minds to say that THEY HAVE TO ACCEPT IT, and the truth is THEY DON’T. It’s called free speech.

Prop 8 did not just happen in California, many people took action they were opposed to it and voted against it, this Country still is a Democracy isn’t it? Yes, live and let live, but listen to what the people are saying.

A lot of your response makes no sense, and you’re not really worth much effort, so I’m only going to respond to a few points.

CLTstraightguy said:
Homosexuality despite the foolish rhetoric IS NOT A RACE.

Uh, I don’t think anyone has ever heard anyone refer to the race of homosexuals. Until now.

CLTstraightguy said:
In any case, I don’t care whether people “like” homosexuality, I just want the government to afford homosexuals the same rights and protections as other people.”
Exactly you don’t care, and friend the Government is the People, but people like you, you want this to be a totalitarian regime that forces people to do it’s bidding no matter how much opposition is against it.

Wanting people to be treated as equals in the eyes of the law is hardly wanting a totalitarian regime. In any case, if 100% of Americans besides myself wanted to institute legal slavery, I would want the government to refuse. As far as how much opposition there is, I’d direct you to this recent poll http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/weekinreview/22gay.html .

CLTstraightguy said:
I am not against homosexuals, nor their lives, I am against their agenda, to force others by positioning people and social organizations as hatemongers, cause they refuse to accept their lifestyle, but you on the other hand seem devote and trying to twist other peoples minds to say that THEY HAVE TO ACCEPT IT, and the truth is THEY DON’T. It’s called free speech.

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say in this incoherent rant, but I think you may be confusing your right to spout bigoted garbage, which I support, and the duty of the government to treat all its citizens as equals under the law, which I also support.

Incoherent rant? You are a piece of work.
The New York Times? (I am laughing out loud) You are giving me stats, from one of the most Left Publications?
Guy, if you are going to try and shift any opinion here, you may want to go with some research that is a little less biased? Like Gallop, or Rassmussen.

Dave Be said:
racist or hate speech?

It’s interesting that you mention racist, though your mindset was on bearing down on my comments as such, I would like to point out that by you saying anything about race, or racist begs me to wonder why you would say this comment after such…

Dave Be said:
Uh, I don’t think anyone has ever heard anyone refer to the race of homosexuals. Until now.

Yeah, you used the comparison of racism, thus pertaining to a racist mentality. If you are saying any of the comments alluded to racism, then you are indeed pitting this choice of Lifestyle as a Race, well you and the others who banter on about people who don’t believe in this lifestyle as being hatemongers, homophobes, bigots… crumb the list goes on….

You have the wrong idea here Dave, you seem to be the intolerant one here.
I am just talking about people not having their inner convictions, religious beliefs, and values sorted out for them.
There is equality. Homosexuals have just as much right to live and function as anyone else, but they do not have the right to sit in the judgment seat and tell people that what they do is right and control peoples minds.
Neither does the church, but there is choice. You may choose to say it is okay, and that’s fine for you, for others, they may say it’s not okay.
As far as the marriage thing goes I have already talked about that, and as long as a majority of people or States, don’t support the action it becomes a problem unless you want to control the homosexual marriages and have them annulled when they move to a different State. If you Federally Mandate it, then you end up with the same thing, totalitarianism. The State telling the people what is right and how to live. That suggestion must be left up to the people, not the Government. I don’t support a law that forces others to view what they see as wrong as okay? LIKEWISE I don’t support a government that forces people to live by a certain standard or code. People make their own choices, and find the truths that dictate living. The Federal Government should only be involved with National Security, Foreign Policy, and Taxes. It should not dictate Social Policies other than enforcing laws, not mandates to protect the public.

CLTstraightguy said:
The New York Times? (I am laughing out loud) You are giving me stats, from one of the most Left Publications?

The article quotes a CNN poll, not a NY Times poll.

CLTstraightguy said:
I would like to point out that by you saying anything about race, or racist begs me to wonder why you would say this comment after such…

The “racist or hate speech” quote you took out of context was about Farakahn talking about Judaism, not about homosexuals.

CLTstraightguy said:
Yeah, you used the comparison of racism, thus pertaining to a racist mentality.

Again, the comparison was to Farakahn, a religious leader, talking about Judaism, in response to your claim that bashing homosexuals is “religious speech.”

CLTstraightguy said:
If you are saying any of the comments alluded to racism

I’m not. The comparison was between Louis Farakahn’s “religious speech” and what you claim is “religious speech.”

CLTstraightguy said:
Homosexuals have just as much right to live and function as anyone else, but they do not have the right to sit in the judgment seat and tell people that what they do is right and control peoples minds.

Unless by “just as much right to live and function” you mean equal access to housing, jobs, healthcare, asset protection, etc?

CLTstraightguy said:
As far as the marriage thing goes I have already talked about that, and as long as a majority of people or States, don’t support the action

They do.

CLTstraightguy said:
If you Federally Mandate it, then you end up with the same thing, totalitarianism.

Look up totalitarianism. Federal laws do not equal totalitarianism.

CLTstraightguy said:
It [federal government] should not dictate Social Policies other than enforcing laws, not mandates to protect the public.

Really? So having sex offenders register, keeping meat with mad cow disease off the market, and pulling Thalidomide are all bad ideas?

Dave Be said:
I’m not. The comparison was between Louis Farakahn’s “religious speech” and what you claim is “religious speech.”

So you are equating Homosexuality as a religion? Your examples don’t seem to equitable, Dave. Religious rights are protected by our Fore Fathers.
Homosexuality, though a choice not shared by many, but by some is covered as a freedom, or a right of choice. If you are equating religious tolerance as hate speech or bigotry than you don’t understand the difference between Church and State.

Dave Be said:
The article quotes a CNN poll, not a NY Times poll.

Oh, okay I am still laughing out loud. CNN, NYT one is broadcast the other is print they are both on the same slant, well maybe CNN is on less of a slant if you cock your head to the left.

Dave Be said:
Look up totalitarianism. Federal laws do not equal totalitarianism.

If you start to mandate what is right, then it is totalitarianism. Forcing people to change their views and convictions is wrong, it’s called brainwashing. Winning people over with truth, love, honesty and servitude that will bring about a change of heart and character.
I must admit, I am at fault here cause sometimes I can be rash, and mocking, so sorry about that.
I am sincere though, I am not the enemy here. I appreciate your dialog and do try to find balance in it. Trust me.

Dave Be said:
So having sex offenders register, keeping meat with mad cow disease off the market, and pulling Thalidomide are all bad ideas?

You make a valid point, and in some cases a law with an offender may cause more harm then good. The problem is when people in government, or the media start to over step their boundaries in manipulating peoples emotions to brainwash them into a certain mentality foregoing their own morality or consciences.

Monitoring Health and Welfare is not a bad thing for the government to be involved with on a base level, but to define what is right and wrong is. Defining if a substance or health threat, yes but to define what a social threat is, no absolutely not. That is where peoples personal convictions, and peaceful religious upbringing comes in.
Health and Welfare should be more under the State not the Fed thereby keeping a separatism and idiosyncratic way to govern.

Dave Be said:
They do.

No, they don’t. A Majority of American’s don’t support homosexual marriage, some support unions, but not marriages.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/Majority-Americans-Continue-Oppose-Gay-Marriage.aspx

It did ease slightly, but most American’s are still opposed to it.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/128291/Americans-Opposition-Gay-Marriage-Eases-Slightly.aspx

CLTstraightguy said:
So you are equating Homosexuality as a religion? Your examples don’t seem to equitable, Dave. Religious rights are protected by our Fore Fathers.

No, I’m equating your religious hate speech to Farakahn’s religious hate speech.

CLTstraightguy said:
Oh, okay I am still laughing out loud. CNN, NYT one is broadcast the other is print they are both on the same slant, well maybe CNN is on less of a slant if you cock your head to the left.

Yes, yes, everything but Fox News is liberal propeganda.

CLTstraightguy said:
If you start to mandate what is right, then it is totalitarianism.

No it’s not. Look it up.

CLTstraightguy said:
Monitoring Health and Welfare is not a bad thing for the government to be involved with on a base level, but to define what is right and wrong is.

Ignoring all the OTHER laws where the government decides what’s right and wrong, like having laws against rape, murder, theft, etc, do you think the protected classes covered by equal employment and equal housing legislation shouldn’t be protectred? Should people be allowed to discriminate based on gender, race, age, disability, and nationality, among others?

Dave Be said:
Yes, yes, everything but Fox News is liberal propeganda.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the case, yes. Whilst for any broadcast news outlet out there Fox while slanted slightly to the Right is more trusted than any other network, likely because people are tired of the Left bias in reporting. I am not a Fox Fan per-say, but I would say they are much more balanced than the many out there. I like the BBC too, but even they tend to be slanted to the Left, just not as much as American News, I completely avoid Canadian Broadcast News as they are more to the Left than American News. But enough about news.

Dave Be said:
Ignoring all the OTHER laws where the government decides what’s right and wrong, like having laws against rape, murder, theft, etc, do you think the protected classes covered by equal employment and equal housing legislation shouldn’t be protectred? Should people be allowed to discriminate based on gender, race, age, disability, and nationality, among others?

Right and Wrong comes from Morality a Moral Code of Ethics. This is a problem when the Government gets involved with Social Thinking, it starts to define what is right and what is wrong. Don’t get me wrong laws have to be put in place to protect people from miscreants and those who would use selfish means to get what they want but, when you start to mandate the way people are to think and act towards others, you start to get into dangerous territory. Let me get some things straight. (No pun intended)
I don’t believe in Affirmative Action, I believe in Actions that are to be Affirmed, if you can do the job do it well, be a good employee show up for work work hard and your image doesn’t it doesn’t directly conflict with the companies image then you should get the job!
I don’t believe in handouts, but I do believe in charity of others.
Equal housing has become a nightmare in a lot of States, cause much of what was just given has just been turned into a slum. People need to prove to themselves that they can handle what they have and do the upkeep, or hire someone to do it for them.
Charity on the other hand, is not handled by the Government, it is handled by people, mainly the Church. The Church is a great institution, it helps people find meaning, and guidance it helps them buckle down and make something of their life while instilling a moral code. It shares a force that changes their hearts and minds, some regress, but most succeed.
Other charitable groups function mainly as a tax dodge, but do indeed play a part in caring for people. The only problem is their charitable acts are not necessarily backed up with giving people good guidance and should be discerned through a Clergy, or a body of peaceful believers. Right and Wrong has to come into play but not from a Governmental body, Right, Wrong, Good, Evil, has to flow from the conscience and a persons experience and knowledge.
Ever since the Government has gotten involved with mandating industry, productivity has gone down the tubes.
Gender, Race, Age, Disability, Nationality, or Sexual Preference any type of Affirmative Action is wrong. People should be hired on their ability, not their disposition. There should be no hierarchy in the system unless the job dictates it.
Disability is a different thing, cause you are dealing with a health issue, and so if the employer can use the person without it effecting the work environment then I would agree they should, but should it be mandated? No.

I’m at a loss for what to say to you heh. You don’t seem to know what equal housing is. You don’t seem to know the difference between equal opportunity and affirmative action. You seem (without coming right out and saying it) that all anti-discrimination laws should be repealed, and all safety net social programs should be repealed and left in the hands of private charities run by churches.

I really like history. I read about history all the time. Not mainly American history, my favorite is Roman, but I’ve read enough American history too to know that the situation you describe is more or less how things were around the turn of the 20th century. You should read up on the misery, bigotry, and suffering that was going on back then, and then ask yourself if that’s really how you think things should be.

Wow, if you know about Roman History, then you should realize that the idea of selling out to all of your human desires was not a very smart idea, and that the Empire itself tore itself apart.
What area of American History are you talking about?
You seem to really love and hang to that word, bigotry. Misery does love company in this. I am surprised you haven’t thrown the “hate, or the phobia” words around. Guess there is still hope there.

Do you know about equal housing? Please enlighten me more on it if you want…what I mentioned is just one part of it. I think that programs like Habitat for Humanity is a great idea, but the problem is there are responsibilities that go with owning a house, and those areas of responsibility should be addressed.

What about the wonderful idea from the Democrats of lowering the risk rate and giving housing loans to people who couldn’t afford them? But it was their right? No, it wasn’t in fact because of that stupidity we are now in one of the largest recessions in American history.

I described the difference between Affirmative Actions, and Actions that Affirm. There should not be a pecking order for hiring, ever! for the reasons I stated. Black, White, Purple whatever… but as far as lifestyle goes? Unless it goes with a certain lifestyle or against a personal conviction then it shouldn’t matter.
Safety net social programs being repealed and being left to outside entities including religious organizations is a smart thing, cause then government can function as a National system, not a social one.

Contrary to Liberal thought the Government shouldn’t be taking care of us. We should be as a body of people, not a governing body of bureaucrats.

CLTstraightguy said:
What area of American History are you talking about?

The end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, say 1890-1930.

CLTstraightguy said:
Do you know about equal housing? Please enlighten me more on it if you want…what I mentioned is just one part of it.

Basically, equal housing and employment say you can’t discriminate against people who are members of the listed protected classes (gender, age, race, nationality, etc) when deciding who to rent/sell to or who to hire for a job. Low income housing, housing projects, etc. are not part of these laws.

CLTstraightguy said:
What about the wonderful idea from the Democrats of lowering the risk rate and giving housing loans to people who couldn’t afford them? But it was their right? No, it wasn’t in fact because of that stupidity we are now in one of the largest recessions in American history.

Democrats try to blame the housing market collapse on republican fiscal policy and lack of financial regulation. Republicans try to blame it on the Clinton-era decision for Fannie Mae to loosen creditworthiness requirements to encourage home ownership. The truth is that there’s plenty of blame to go around.

Dave Be said:
Democrats try to blame the housing market collapse on republican fiscal policy and lack of financial regulation. Republicans try to blame it on the Clinton-era decision for Fannie Mae to loosen creditworthiness requirements to encourage home ownership. The truth is that there’s plenty of blame to go around.

You are exactly right. Both have their own problems, however in regards to the Equal Housing and also the dream of a house for everyone, FMFM and the Clinton era, had everything to do with that.

Dave Be said:
Basically, equal housing and employment say you can’t discriminate against people who are members of the listed protected classes (gender, age, race, nationality, etc) when deciding who to rent/sell to or who to hire for a job. Low income housing, housing projects, etc. are not part of these laws.

I did, understand the equal housing policy, and let’s face it there is discrimination but not on a large scale.
Enforcing a policy such as this though does have it’s draw backs when people “Cry Wolf” and it does happen.
Making “Protected Classes” however is something that should not be enacted because then it brings favoritism into play, and someone who is not in one of these “Protected Classes” becomes the victim. It is a Catch22. The Nazi’s, and the Soviets formed an elitist mentality when they proposed a type of “Protected Class” (Not saying we are on that road but it is a very serious example) No, rather with our “Protective Classes” this becomes a way, to act as if it is their right, and it’s nobodies right. We have to work, and prove ourselves to others to get housing, jobs, etc… There are certain levels in society whether we like it or not, although we can have unity, we can’t all be equal in all measures that is just life. Life is not fair, it’s Life.
Anyone who has anything or made something of themselves has to work for it with blood, sweat and tears by proving themselves. Except for those who inherit it, and that is a small percentage. Those who inherit their resources can be compared to the same idea of a protected class like the Government mandates, they get something for nothing just because of what they are. In the same manner (Unless by following good upbringing morals and statutes passed down) they too ended squandering what they had and create more problems, cause unlike those who made it to the “top” they had it handed to them.

It may seem like I am off on this because we are discussing Race, Gender, Nationality, Age etc, but the truth is no one deserves anything, we have to prove ourselves by our character, commitment and ethics.

To much that is given, much is required.