Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An Ohio lawmaker who routinely touted his Christian faith and anti-LGBT views has resigned after being caught having sex with a man in his office. Wes Goodman, who is the Republican state legislator for Ohio, is married to a woman who is assistant director of an annual anti-abortion rally known as March for Life. The right-wing legislator, who pushed “family values”, was reportedly witnessed having sex with a man inside his office who was not employed by the legislator. Oh the irony!" God doesn’t pay his debts in money - as my granny used to say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What exactly were his anti-LGBT views? " As I recall from reading about this earlier, he's vocal about opposing same-sex marriage, and is associated with an extremist Christian anti-LBGT organisation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What exactly were his anti-LGBT views? As I recall from reading about this earlier, he's vocal about opposing same-sex marriage, and is associated with an extremist Christian anti-LBGT organisation." Ok, not what i would call anti-LGBT personally. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's a long list of these right-wing nutjobs who dedicate their political lives to making life tougher for LGBT people, whilst hypocritically seeking and getting gay sex. If people are in the closet, that's their choice but to gain election upon and then enact legal restrictions upon LGBT people is immoral. Good that he's not around to make others suffer more." What exactly makes him a "right-wing nutjob" other than him disagreeing with you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What exactly were his anti-LGBT views? As I recall from reading about this earlier, he's vocal about opposing same-sex marriage, and is associated with an extremist Christian anti-LBGT organisation. Ok, not what i would call anti-LGBT personally. " Yeah I wouldn't call extremist Christian anti-LGBT organisations 'anti-LGBT' either .......  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What exactly were his anti-LGBT views? As I recall from reading about this earlier, he's vocal about opposing same-sex marriage, and is associated with an extremist Christian anti-LBGT organisation. Ok, not what i would call anti-LGBT personally. Yeah I wouldn't call extremist Christian anti-LGBT organisations 'anti-LGBT' either ....... "Well those are just labels, what exactly is the policy he advocated that makes him anti-LGBT or a nutjob? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What exactly were his anti-LGBT views? As I recall from reading about this earlier, he's vocal about opposing same-sex marriage, and is associated with an extremist Christian anti-LBGT organisation. Ok, not what i would call anti-LGBT personally. Yeah I wouldn't call extremist Christian anti-LGBT organisations 'anti-LGBT' either .......
Well those are just labels, what exactly is the policy he advocated that makes him anti-LGBT or a nutjob? "Ok, so what do you think makes someone anti LGBT? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An Ohio lawmaker who routinely touted his Christian faith and anti-LGBT views has resigned after being caught having sex with a man in his office. Wes Goodman, who is the Republican state legislator for Ohio, is married to a woman who is assistant director of an annual anti-abortion rally known as March for Life. The right-wing legislator, who pushed “family values”, was reportedly witnessed having sex with a man inside his office who was not employed by the legislator. Oh the irony!" Actually, it's hypocrisy.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An Ohio lawmaker who routinely touted his Christian faith and anti-LGBT views has resigned after being caught having sex with a man in his office. Wes Goodman, who is the Republican state legislator for Ohio, is married to a woman who is assistant director of an annual anti-abortion rally known as March for Life. The right-wing legislator, who pushed “family values”, was reportedly witnessed having sex with a man inside his office who was not employed by the legislator. Oh the irony! Actually, it's hypocrisy. "Thank you   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What exactly were his anti-LGBT views? As I recall from reading about this earlier, he's vocal about opposing same-sex marriage, and is associated with an extremist Christian anti-LBGT organisation. Ok, not what i would call anti-LGBT personally. Yeah I wouldn't call extremist Christian anti-LGBT organisations 'anti-LGBT' either .......
Well those are just labels, what exactly is the policy he advocated that makes him anti-LGBT or a nutjob?
Ok, so what do you think makes someone anti LGBT?"Yea I’m not quite sure what their argument is. I could see your point on the nut job argument. But not the rest | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What exactly were his anti-LGBT views? As I recall from reading about this earlier, he's vocal about opposing same-sex marriage, and is associated with an extremist Christian anti-LBGT organisation. Ok, not what i would call anti-LGBT personally. Yeah I wouldn't call extremist Christian anti-LGBT organisations 'anti-LGBT' either .......
Well those are just labels, what exactly is the policy he advocated that makes him anti-LGBT or a nutjob?
Ok, so what do you think makes someone anti LGBT?"Well you've got people who think the LGBT community need new rights, people who think the balance between their rights and conflicting rights of others is about right (i.e. no change necessary) and those who would like to take away rights they already have. The latter category is what i would term anti-LGBT. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An Ohio lawmaker who routinely touted his Christian faith and anti-LGBT views has resigned after being caught having sex with a man in his office. Wes Goodman, who is the Republican state legislator for Ohio, is married to a woman who is assistant director of an annual anti-abortion rally known as March for Life. The right-wing legislator, who pushed “family values”, was reportedly witnessed having sex with a man inside his office who was not employed by the legislator. Oh the irony! Actually, it's hypocrisy. "I do honestly see the funny side, it is cringe worthy levels of funny. But hypocrisy is a pretty weak criticism to make of someone, i mean none of us have any double standards do we?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Some have larger double standards if that's mathematically possible." There are only two parties in america and clearly he doesn't fit well in either. Perhaps the constant name calling, list of 'ists' and 'phobics' put him off the left wing party. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Some have larger double standards if that's mathematically possible. There are only two parties in america and clearly he doesn't fit well in either. Perhaps the constant name calling, list of 'ists' and 'phobics' put him off the left wing party. " Wow! There are not only 2 parties in America there's a number of INDEPENDANT politicians and politicians representing other parties, similar to here there are 2 main parties who are the ones that always end up in power. Anti-lgbt I think you'll find the majority of we lgbt folk would consider anyone who preaches that being lgbt is immoral/wrong is ANTI and not supporting our rights to equal treatment is ANTI | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Some have larger double standards if that's mathematically possible. There are only two parties in america and clearly he doesn't fit well in either. Perhaps the constant name calling, list of 'ists' and 'phobics' put him off the left wing party. Wow! There are not only 2 parties in America there's a number of INDEPENDANT politicians and politicians representing other parties, similar to here there are 2 main parties who are the ones that always end up in power. Anti-lgbt I think you'll find the majority of we lgbt folk would consider anyone who preaches that being lgbt is immoral/wrong is ANTI and not supporting our rights to equal treatment is ANTI " Nope that's just a poor attempt at framing an arguement you can't lose. Firstly, the 'if you're not for us, you're against us' arguement is self evidently wrong. Secondly, the US political system is not like ours you only have to look at the proportion of representatives outside the two main parties to understand why. Finally, he's a law maker not a preacher so what are the specific laws or policies that make him anti-LGBT? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He actively campaigned against same sex marriage and repeatedly said the only "natural marriage" is one between a man and a woman. " Which is a staple belief of conservatives, which is the only credible opposition to the democrat party. So basically you think everyone who disagrees with you is a nutjob and against you? There are no other rational view points except your own. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are there any pro LGBT republicans in the states..? Fab straight is a condition that can afflict anyone "
Look we've been over this, he slipped and fell to his knees. I tried to catch him but he missed my arms and grabbed my trousers, which then fell down. Stop trying to make it into something it wasn't. Yes i do normally walk around wearing a condom, any more stupid questions? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He actively campaigned against same sex marriage and repeatedly said the only "natural marriage" is one between a man and a woman. Which is a staple belief of conservatives, which is the only credible opposition to the democrat party. So basically you think everyone who disagrees with you is a nutjob and against you? There are no other rational view points except your own. " There's a difference between disagreeing in principle and actively discriminating. The church is struggling to grasp this for instance. They oppose marrying same sex in ceremonies as that's opposed their tradition and belief. However mire and more key figure are appealing for equality. I think The nutjob reference is towards radical shouty lynchmob sorts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are there any pro LGBT republicans in the states..? Fab straight is a condition that can afflict anyone
Look we've been over this, he slipped and fell to his knees. I tried to catch him but he missed my arms and grabbed my trousers, which then fell down. Stop trying to make it into something it wasn't. Yes i do normally walk around wearing a condom, any more stupid questions? " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He actively campaigned against same sex marriage and repeatedly said the only "natural marriage" is one between a man and a woman. Which is a staple belief of conservatives, which is the only credible opposition to the democrat party. So basically you think everyone who disagrees with you is a nutjob and against you? There are no other rational view points except your own. There's a difference between disagreeing in principle and actively discriminating. The church is struggling to grasp this for instance. They oppose marrying same sex in ceremonies as that's opposed their tradition and belief. However mire and more key figure are appealing for equality. I think The nutjob reference is towards radical shouty lynchmob sorts." Jacob Rees-Mogg is a good example of someone who disagrees in principle but isn't going to be trying to remove anyones current rights. I'm not sure which church you are specifically referring to. I think most churches are more concerned about the principle of the state telling them what they can and can't believe / act upon within their own faith. I'm personally curious why civil partnerships weren't given identical rights to marriage when they were introduced. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Some have larger double standards if that's mathematically possible. There are only two parties in america and clearly he doesn't fit well in either. Perhaps the constant name calling, list of 'ists' and 'phobics' put him off the left wing party. Wow! There are not only 2 parties in America there's a number of INDEPENDANT politicians and politicians representing other parties, similar to here there are 2 main parties who are the ones that always end up in power. Anti-lgbt I think you'll find the majority of we lgbt folk would consider anyone who preaches that being lgbt is immoral/wrong is ANTI and not supporting our rights to equal treatment is ANTI Nope that's just a poor attempt at framing an arguement you can't lose. Firstly, the 'if you're not for us, you're against us' arguement is self evidently wrong. How? Blocking rights for others that don't affect you (although in this case turns out he shot himself in the foot!) IS an anti way of behaving. Secondly, the US political system is not like ours you only have to look at the proportion of representatives outside the two main parties to understand why. I didn't say their ENTIRE political system like ours, I said the 2 horse race nonsense is similar to here. Talk about ad absurdum arguing Finally, he's a law maker not a preacher so what are the specific laws or policies that make him anti-LGBT? " I clearly meant preach as a colloquial term as in 'banging on about and trying to force others to agree with'.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hope you lube yourself up in case you find yourself again caught up in the middle of a similar sequence of events... better to be safe, even when straight" Any sensible heterosexual man carries condoms around for safety, putting one on at work is just an added precaution. And poppers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Which is a staple belief of conservatives, which is the only credible opposition to the democrat party. So basically you think everyone who disagrees with you is a nutjob and against you? There are no other rational view points except your own. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He actively campaigned against same sex marriage and repeatedly said the only "natural marriage" is one between a man and a woman. Which is a staple belief of conservatives, which is the only credible opposition to the democrat party. So basically you think everyone who disagrees with you is a nutjob and against you? There are no other rational view points except your own. " Wow NOWHERE NEAR what I said at all, I stated FACTUALLY what he had done as a politician. NOT all republican politicians hold these views | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He actively campaigned against same sex marriage and repeatedly said the only "natural marriage" is one between a man and a woman. Which is a staple belief of conservatives, which is the only credible opposition to the democrat party. So basically you think everyone who disagrees with you is a nutjob and against you? There are no other rational view points except your own. There's a difference between disagreeing in principle and actively discriminating. The church is struggling to grasp this for instance. They oppose marrying same sex in ceremonies as that's opposed their tradition and belief. However mire and more key figure are appealing for equality. I think The nutjob reference is towards radical shouty lynchmob sorts. Jacob Rees-Mogg is a good example of someone who disagrees in principle but isn't going to be trying to remove anyones current rights. I'm not sure which church you are specifically referring to. I think most churches are more concerned about the principle of the state telling them what they can and can't believe / act upon within their own faith. I'm personally curious why civil partnerships weren't given identical rights to marriage when they were introduced. " You're using Jacob Rees-Mogg as someone who is reasonable about civil liberties? Really? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Some have larger double standards if that's mathematically possible. There are only two parties in america and clearly he doesn't fit well in either. Perhaps the constant name calling, list of 'ists' and 'phobics' put him off the left wing party. Wow! There are not only 2 parties in America there's a number of INDEPENDANT politicians and politicians representing other parties, similar to here there are 2 main parties who are the ones that always end up in power. Anti-lgbt I think you'll find the majority of we lgbt folk would consider anyone who preaches that being lgbt is immoral/wrong is ANTI and not supporting our rights to equal treatment is ANTI Nope that's just a poor attempt at framing an arguement you can't lose. Firstly, the 'if you're not for us, you're against us' arguement is self evidently wrong. How? Blocking rights for others that don't affect you (although in this case turns out he shot himself in the foot!) IS an anti way of behaving. Secondly, the US political system is not like ours you only have to look at the proportion of representatives outside the two main parties to understand why. I didn't say their ENTIRE political system like ours, I said the 2 horse race nonsense is similar to here. Talk about ad absurdum arguing Finally, he's a law maker not a preacher so what are the specific laws or policies that make him anti-LGBT? I clearly meant preach as a colloquial term as in 'banging on about and trying to force others to agree with'. "Individual rights overlap. Most religious people are well aware that the general population of virtually every western country is in favour of gay marriage, what they actually fear is the state forcing them to perform gay marriages, which is the natural progression. Their fears are encouraged when there's a manufactured crisis that civil partnerships were lacking some of the rights of marriage- interesting that the 'obvious' solution to that was to allow gay marriage rather than just improve civil partnerships... British people are very parochial whilst American's are better in tune with the next steps, hence why nobody can agree on gun control. It's not really the banning of assult rifles they object to, it's the inevitable progression to handguns afterwards. Remember when abortion was going to be "safe, legal and rare"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He actively campaigned against same sex marriage and repeatedly said the only "natural marriage" is one between a man and a woman. Which is a staple belief of conservatives, which is the only credible opposition to the democrat party. So basically you think everyone who disagrees with you is a nutjob and against you? There are no other rational view points except your own. There's a difference between disagreeing in principle and actively discriminating. The church is struggling to grasp this for instance. They oppose marrying same sex in ceremonies as that's opposed their tradition and belief. However mire and more key figure are appealing for equality. I think The nutjob reference is towards radical shouty lynchmob sorts. Jacob Rees-Mogg is a good example of someone who disagrees in principle but isn't going to be trying to remove anyones current rights. I'm not sure which church you are specifically referring to. I think most churches are more concerned about the principle of the state telling them what they can and can't believe / act upon within their own faith. I'm personally curious why civil partnerships weren't given identical rights to marriage when they were introduced. You're using Jacob Rees-Mogg as someone who is reasonable about civil liberties? Really? "Perhaps not the ones you care about. But i very much doubt you give a toss about the civil liberties of religious people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Behind every great man, there stands a man with an erection penis. "Have you seen the film meet the Spartans? The adjust your sword boy scene is the perfect counterpart to that statement | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Some have larger double standards if that's mathematically possible. There are only two parties in america and clearly he doesn't fit well in either. Perhaps the constant name calling, list of 'ists' and 'phobics' put him off the left wing party. Wow! There are not only 2 parties in America there's a number of INDEPENDANT politicians and politicians representing other parties, similar to here there are 2 main parties who are the ones that always end up in power. Anti-lgbt I think you'll find the majority of we lgbt folk would consider anyone who preaches that being lgbt is immoral/wrong is ANTI and not supporting our rights to equal treatment is ANTI Nope that's just a poor attempt at framing an arguement you can't lose. Firstly, the 'if you're not for us, you're against us' arguement is self evidently wrong. How? Blocking rights for others that don't affect you (although in this case turns out he shot himself in the foot!) IS an anti way of behaving. Secondly, the US political system is not like ours you only have to look at the proportion of representatives outside the two main parties to understand why. I didn't say their ENTIRE political system like ours, I said the 2 horse race nonsense is similar to here. Talk about ad absurdum arguing Finally, he's a law maker not a preacher so what are the specific laws or policies that make him anti-LGBT? I clearly meant preach as a colloquial term as in 'banging on about and trying to force others to agree with'.
Individual rights overlap. Most religious people are well aware that the general population of virtually every western country is in favour of gay marriage, what they actually fear is the state forcing them to perform gay marriages, which is the natural progression. Their fears are encouraged when there's a manufactured crisis that civil partnerships were lacking some of the rights of marriage- interesting that the 'obvious' solution to that was to allow gay marriage rather than just improve civil partnerships...
British people are very parochial whilst American's are better in tune with the next steps, hence why nobody can agree on gun control. It's not really the banning of assult rifles they object to, it's the inevitable progression to handguns afterwards. Remember when abortion was going to be "safe, legal and rare"? "Are you American? Serious question | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He actively campaigned against same sex marriage and repeatedly said the only "natural marriage" is one between a man and a woman. Which is a staple belief of conservatives, which is the only credible opposition to the democrat party. So basically you think everyone who disagrees with you is a nutjob and against you? There are no other rational view points except your own. There's a difference between disagreeing in principle and actively discriminating. The church is struggling to grasp this for instance. They oppose marrying same sex in ceremonies as that's opposed their tradition and belief. However mire and more key figure are appealing for equality. I think The nutjob reference is towards radical shouty lynchmob sorts. Jacob Rees-Mogg is a good example of someone who disagrees in principle but isn't going to be trying to remove anyones current rights. I'm not sure which church you are specifically referring to. I think most churches are more concerned about the principle of the state telling them what they can and can't believe / act upon within their own faith. I'm personally curious why civil partnerships weren't given identical rights to marriage when they were introduced. You're using Jacob Rees-Mogg as someone who is reasonable about civil liberties? Really?
Perhaps not the ones you care about. But i very much doubt you give a toss about the civil liberties of religious people. "He ALWAYS votes against equality regardless of WHO'S equality | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Some have larger double standards if that's mathematically possible. There are only two parties in america and clearly he doesn't fit well in either. Perhaps the constant name calling, list of 'ists' and 'phobics' put him off the left wing party. Wow! There are not only 2 parties in America there's a number of INDEPENDANT politicians and politicians representing other parties, similar to here there are 2 main parties who are the ones that always end up in power. Anti-lgbt I think you'll find the majority of we lgbt folk would consider anyone who preaches that being lgbt is immoral/wrong is ANTI and not supporting our rights to equal treatment is ANTI Nope that's just a poor attempt at framing an arguement you can't lose. Firstly, the 'if you're not for us, you're against us' arguement is self evidently wrong. How? Blocking rights for others that don't affect you (although in this case turns out he shot himself in the foot!) IS an anti way of behaving. Secondly, the US political system is not like ours you only have to look at the proportion of representatives outside the two main parties to understand why. I didn't say their ENTIRE political system like ours, I said the 2 horse race nonsense is similar to here. Talk about ad absurdum arguing Finally, he's a law maker not a preacher so what are the specific laws or policies that make him anti-LGBT? I clearly meant preach as a colloquial term as in 'banging on about and trying to force others to agree with'.
Individual rights overlap. Most religious people are well aware that the general population of virtually every western country is in favour of gay marriage, what they actually fear is the state forcing them to perform gay marriages, which is the natural progression. Their fears are encouraged when there's a manufactured crisis that civil partnerships were lacking some of the rights of marriage- interesting that the 'obvious' solution to that was to allow gay marriage rather than just improve civil partnerships...
British people are very parochial whilst American's are better in tune with the next steps, hence why nobody can agree on gun control. It's not really the banning of assult rifles they object to, it's the inevitable progression to handguns afterwards. Remember when abortion was going to be "safe, legal and rare"?
Are you American? Serious question "I'm not sure of the relevance of that to this discussion. I'd rather you debate the views expressed than make assumptions about the person expressing them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He actively campaigned against same sex marriage and repeatedly said the only "natural marriage" is one between a man and a woman. Which is a staple belief of conservatives, which is the only credible opposition to the democrat party. So basically you think everyone who disagrees with you is a nutjob and against you? There are no other rational view points except your own. There's a difference between disagreeing in principle and actively discriminating. The church is struggling to grasp this for instance. They oppose marrying same sex in ceremonies as that's opposed their tradition and belief. However mire and more key figure are appealing for equality. I think The nutjob reference is towards radical shouty lynchmob sorts. Jacob Rees-Mogg is a good example of someone who disagrees in principle but isn't going to be trying to remove anyones current rights. I'm not sure which church you are specifically referring to. I think most churches are more concerned about the principle of the state telling them what they can and can't believe / act upon within their own faith. I'm personally curious why civil partnerships weren't given identical rights to marriage when they were introduced. You're using Jacob Rees-Mogg as someone who is reasonable about civil liberties? Really?
Perhaps not the ones you care about. But i very much doubt you give a toss about the civil liberties of religious people.
He ALWAYS votes against equality regardless of WHO'S equality "You know capital letters don't advance your arguement? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Some have larger double standards if that's mathematically possible. There are only two parties in america and clearly he doesn't fit well in either. Perhaps the constant name calling, list of 'ists' and 'phobics' put him off the left wing party. Wow! There are not only 2 parties in America there's a number of INDEPENDANT politicians and politicians representing other parties, similar to here there are 2 main parties who are the ones that always end up in power. Anti-lgbt I think you'll find the majority of we lgbt folk would consider anyone who preaches that being lgbt is immoral/wrong is ANTI and not supporting our rights to equal treatment is ANTI Nope that's just a poor attempt at framing an arguement you can't lose. Firstly, the 'if you're not for us, you're against us' arguement is self evidently wrong. How? Blocking rights for others that don't affect you (although in this case turns out he shot himself in the foot!) IS an anti way of behaving. Secondly, the US political system is not like ours you only have to look at the proportion of representatives outside the two main parties to understand why. I didn't say their ENTIRE political system like ours, I said the 2 horse race nonsense is similar to here. Talk about ad absurdum arguing Finally, he's a law maker not a preacher so what are the specific laws or policies that make him anti-LGBT? I clearly meant preach as a colloquial term as in 'banging on about and trying to force others to agree with'.
Individual rights overlap. Most religious people are well aware that the general population of virtually every western country is in favour of gay marriage, what they actually fear is the state forcing them to perform gay marriages, which is the natural progression. Their fears are encouraged when there's a manufactured crisis that civil partnerships were lacking some of the rights of marriage- interesting that the 'obvious' solution to that was to allow gay marriage rather than just improve civil partnerships...
British people are very parochial whilst American's are better in tune with the next steps, hence why nobody can agree on gun control. It's not really the banning of assult rifles they object to, it's the inevitable progression to handguns afterwards. Remember when abortion was going to be "safe, legal and rare"?
Are you American? Serious question
I'm not sure of the relevance of that to this discussion. I'd rather you debate the views expressed than make assumptions about the person expressing them. "Could perhaps explain some of your views. Brits parochial and Americans more in tune with wider ideas? Really? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He actively campaigned against same sex marriage and repeatedly said the only "natural marriage" is one between a man and a woman. Which is a staple belief of conservatives, which is the only credible opposition to the democrat party. So basically you think everyone who disagrees with you is a nutjob and against you? There are no other rational view points except your own. There's a difference between disagreeing in principle and actively discriminating. The church is struggling to grasp this for instance. They oppose marrying same sex in ceremonies as that's opposed their tradition and belief. However mire and more key figure are appealing for equality. I think The nutjob reference is towards radical shouty lynchmob sorts. Jacob Rees-Mogg is a good example of someone who disagrees in principle but isn't going to be trying to remove anyones current rights. I'm not sure which church you are specifically referring to. I think most churches are more concerned about the principle of the state telling them what they can and can't believe / act upon within their own faith. I'm personally curious why civil partnerships weren't given identical rights to marriage when they were introduced. You're using Jacob Rees-Mogg as someone who is reasonable about civil liberties? Really?
Perhaps not the ones you care about. But i very much doubt you give a toss about the civil liberties of religious people.
He ALWAYS votes against equality regardless of WHO'S equality
You know capital letters don't advance your arguement? "They are for emphasis and as this is a written medium allows me to express my meaning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Some have larger double standards if that's mathematically possible. There are only two parties in america and clearly he doesn't fit well in either. Perhaps the constant name calling, list of 'ists' and 'phobics' put him off the left wing party. Wow! There are not only 2 parties in America there's a number of INDEPENDANT politicians and politicians representing other parties, similar to here there are 2 main parties who are the ones that always end up in power. Anti-lgbt I think you'll find the majority of we lgbt folk would consider anyone who preaches that being lgbt is immoral/wrong is ANTI and not supporting our rights to equal treatment is ANTI Nope that's just a poor attempt at framing an arguement you can't lose. Firstly, the 'if you're not for us, you're against us' arguement is self evidently wrong. How? Blocking rights for others that don't affect you (although in this case turns out he shot himself in the foot!) IS an anti way of behaving. Secondly, the US political system is not like ours you only have to look at the proportion of representatives outside the two main parties to understand why. I didn't say their ENTIRE political system like ours, I said the 2 horse race nonsense is similar to here. Talk about ad absurdum arguing Finally, he's a law maker not a preacher so what are the specific laws or policies that make him anti-LGBT? I clearly meant preach as a colloquial term as in 'banging on about and trying to force others to agree with'.
Individual rights overlap. Most religious people are well aware that the general population of virtually every western country is in favour of gay marriage, what they actually fear is the state forcing them to perform gay marriages, which is the natural progression. Their fears are encouraged when there's a manufactured crisis that civil partnerships were lacking some of the rights of marriage- interesting that the 'obvious' solution to that was to allow gay marriage rather than just improve civil partnerships...
British people are very parochial whilst American's are better in tune with the next steps, hence why nobody can agree on gun control. It's not really the banning of assult rifles they object to, it's the inevitable progression to handguns afterwards. Remember when abortion was going to be "safe, legal and rare"?
Are you American? Serious question
I'm not sure of the relevance of that to this discussion. I'd rather you debate the views expressed than make assumptions about the person expressing them.
Could perhaps explain some of your views. Brits parochial and Americans more in tune with wider ideas? Really?
"If you can't get it from my comments on gun control and abortion then I'm afraid i can't explain it any better. Along with gay marriage those are top 3 ideological battlegrounds between right and left in america. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Some have larger double standards if that's mathematically possible. There are only two parties in america and clearly he doesn't fit well in either. Perhaps the constant name calling, list of 'ists' and 'phobics' put him off the left wing party. Wow! There are not only 2 parties in America there's a number of INDEPENDANT politicians and politicians representing other parties, similar to here there are 2 main parties who are the ones that always end up in power. Anti-lgbt I think you'll find the majority of we lgbt folk would consider anyone who preaches that being lgbt is immoral/wrong is ANTI and not supporting our rights to equal treatment is ANTI Nope that's just a poor attempt at framing an arguement you can't lose. Firstly, the 'if you're not for us, you're against us' arguement is self evidently wrong. How? Blocking rights for others that don't affect you (although in this case turns out he shot himself in the foot!) IS an anti way of behaving. Secondly, the US political system is not like ours you only have to look at the proportion of representatives outside the two main parties to understand why. I didn't say their ENTIRE political system like ours, I said the 2 horse race nonsense is similar to here. Talk about ad absurdum arguing Finally, he's a law maker not a preacher so what are the specific laws or policies that make him anti-LGBT? I clearly meant preach as a colloquial term as in 'banging on about and trying to force others to agree with'.
Individual rights overlap. Most religious people are well aware that the general population of virtually every western country is in favour of gay marriage, what they actually fear is the state forcing them to perform gay marriages, which is the natural progression. Their fears are encouraged when there's a manufactured crisis that civil partnerships were lacking some of the rights of marriage- interesting that the 'obvious' solution to that was to allow gay marriage rather than just improve civil partnerships...
British people are very parochial whilst American's are better in tune with the next steps, hence why nobody can agree on gun control. It's not really the banning of assult rifles they object to, it's the inevitable progression to handguns afterwards. Remember when abortion was going to be "safe, legal and rare"?
Are you American? Serious question
I'm not sure of the relevance of that to this discussion. I'd rather you debate the views expressed than make assumptions about the person expressing them.
Could perhaps explain some of your views. Brits parochial and Americans more in tune with wider ideas? Really?
If you can't get it from my comments on gun control and abortion then I'm afraid i can't explain it any better. Along with gay marriage those are top 3 ideological battlegrounds between right and left in america. "What a strange non answer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What exactly were his anti-LGBT views? " If you are actively trying to stop LGBT from having the same rights as everyone else then that would make you anti-lgbt. Your definition that they're only anti-lgbt if they're trying to remove existing rights doesnt hold up if you apply it to other minorities. If black people couldn't vote and there was a politician actively trying to make sure they couldn't get the right to vote, would they not be racist? By your logic, no | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What exactly were his anti-LGBT views? If you are actively trying to stop LGBT from having the same rights as everyone else then that would make you anti-lgbt. Your definition that they're only anti-lgbt if they're trying to remove existing rights doesnt hold up if you apply it to other minorities. If black people couldn't vote and there was a politician actively trying to make sure they couldn't get the right to vote, would they not be racist? By your logic, no" But this is another attempt at framing. Why could the LGBT community not have all those legal rights through the vehicle of a civil partnership? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If black people couldn't vote and there was a politician actively trying to make sure they couldn't get the right to vote, would they not be racist? By your logic, no" Being a racist is against a race of certain people like French or German for instance not the colour of someone's skin. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If black people couldn't vote and there was a politician actively trying to make sure they couldn't get the right to vote, would they not be racist? By your logic, no Being a racist is against a race of certain people like French or German for instance not the colour of someone's skin. " What are you talking about, nationalities aren't races | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If black people couldn't vote and there was a politician actively trying to make sure they couldn't get the right to vote, would they not be racist? By your logic, no Being a racist is against a race of certain people like French or German for instance not the colour of someone's skin. " Think there's been a lot of court cases to the contrary? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If black people couldn't vote and there was a politician actively trying to make sure they couldn't get the right to vote, would they not be racist? By your logic, no Being a racist is against a race of certain people like French or German for instance not the colour of someone's skin. " Just to educate me , there is a very real activity where some humans vindictivly target people with non white skin based upon that skin colour alone , could you tell me what that action is universally called | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If black people couldn't vote and there was a politician actively trying to make sure they couldn't get the right to vote, would they not be racist? By your logic, no Being a racist is against a race of certain people like French or German for instance not the colour of someone's skin. Just to educate me , there is a very real activity where some humans vindictivly target people with non white skin based upon that skin colour alone , could you tell me what that action is universally called " It happens to people with white skin as well | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If black people couldn't vote and there was a politician actively trying to make sure they couldn't get the right to vote, would they not be racist? By your logic, no Being a racist is against a race of certain people like French or German for instance not the colour of someone's skin. Just to educate me , there is a very real activity where some humans vindictivly target people with non white skin based upon that skin colour alone , could you tell me what that action is universally called It happens to people with white skin as well" Very observant and it's called ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Racist ...NOUN a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another. Don't see any mention of colour in the dictionary meaning. " I asked what it was called xxx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Racist ...NOUN a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another. Don't see any mention of colour in the dictionary meaning. " That's because the different races have different skin colour. How is this not something you know | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Racist ...NOUN a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another. Don't see any mention of colour in the dictionary meaning. " What is a race , I have no idea ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If black people couldn't vote and there was a politician actively trying to make sure they couldn't get the right to vote, would they not be racist? By your logic, no Being a racist is against a race of certain people like French or German for instance not the colour of someone's skin. Just to educate me , there is a very real activity where some humans vindictivly target people with non white skin based upon that skin colour alone , could you tell me what that action is universally called It happens to people with white skin as well Very observant and it's called ?" Well my understanding is that race can be a grouping based on a range of factors including but not exclusive to ethnicity, culture and history, gypsies are classed as a race i believe. So what you describe would be racism. Can you confirm that when black people kill white farmers, for example in Zimbabwe and the President refuses to prosecute the murderers, that is also racism? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If black people couldn't vote and there was a politician actively trying to make sure they couldn't get the right to vote, would they not be racist? By your logic, no Being a racist is against a race of certain people like French or German for instance not the colour of someone's skin. Just to educate me , there is a very real activity where some humans vindictivly target people with non white skin based upon that skin colour alone , could you tell me what that action is universally called It happens to people with white skin as well Very observant and it's called ? Well my understanding is that race can be a grouping based on a range of factors including but not exclusive to ethnicity, culture and history, gypsies are classed as a race i believe. So what you describe would be racism. Can you confirm that when black people kill white farmers, for example in Zimbabwe and the President refuses to prosecute the murderers, that is also racism? " Shall we just refrain from being pedantic and call it what is? Discrimination.
C | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If black people couldn't vote and there was a politician actively trying to make sure they couldn't get the right to vote, would they not be racist? By your logic, no Being a racist is against a race of certain people like French or German for instance not the colour of someone's skin. Just to educate me , there is a very real activity where some humans vindictivly target people with non white skin based upon that skin colour alone , could you tell me what that action is universally called It happens to people with white skin as well Very observant and it's called ? Well my understanding is that race can be a grouping based on a range of factors including but not exclusive to ethnicity, culture and history, gypsies are classed as a race i believe. So what you describe would be racism. Can you confirm that when black people kill white farmers, for example in Zimbabwe and the President refuses to prosecute the murderers, that is also racism? " Sounds exactly like racism and tribalism to me yes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If black people couldn't vote and there was a politician actively trying to make sure they couldn't get the right to vote, would they not be racist? By your logic, no Being a racist is against a race of certain people like French or German for instance not the colour of someone's skin. Just to educate me , there is a very real activity where some humans vindictivly target people with non white skin based upon that skin colour alone , could you tell me what that action is universally called It happens to people with white skin as well Very observant and it's called ? Well my understanding is that race can be a grouping based on a range of factors including but not exclusive to ethnicity, culture and history, gypsies are classed as a race i believe. So what you describe would be racism. Can you confirm that when black people kill white farmers, for example in Zimbabwe and the President refuses to prosecute the murderers, that is also racism? Shall we just refrain from being pedantic and call it what is? Discrimination.
C"What's pedantic. Are you not aware that some of the far left believe black people cannot be racist? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's because the different races have different skin colour. How is this not something you know" By that logic all British people should be white and all African people be black ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If black people couldn't vote and there was a politician actively trying to make sure they couldn't get the right to vote, would they not be racist? By your logic, no Being a racist is against a race of certain people like French or German for instance not the colour of someone's skin. Just to educate me , there is a very real activity where some humans vindictivly target people with non white skin based upon that skin colour alone , could you tell me what that action is universally called It happens to people with white skin as well Very observant and it's called ? Well my understanding is that race can be a grouping based on a range of factors including but not exclusive to ethnicity, culture and history, gypsies are classed as a race i believe. So what you describe would be racism. Can you confirm that when black people kill white farmers, for example in Zimbabwe and the President refuses to prosecute the murderers, that is also racism? Shall we just refrain from being pedantic and call it what is? Discrimination.
C
What's pedantic. Are you not aware that some of the far left believe black people cannot be racist? "It's when a person is excessively concerned with minor details or rules. But that's beside the point
C | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If black people couldn't vote and there was a politician actively trying to make sure they couldn't get the right to vote, would they not be racist? By your logic, no Being a racist is against a race of certain people like French or German for instance not the colour of someone's skin. Just to educate me , there is a very real activity where some humans vindictivly target people with non white skin based upon that skin colour alone , could you tell me what that action is universally called It happens to people with white skin as well Very observant and it's called ? Well my understanding is that race can be a grouping based on a range of factors including but not exclusive to ethnicity, culture and history, gypsies are classed as a race i believe. So what you describe would be racism. Can you confirm that when black people kill white farmers, for example in Zimbabwe and the President refuses to prosecute the murderers, that is also racism? " Are you trying to establish the obvious that we all sadly know that some humans of all so called races can be incredibly racist , discriminatory and tribal genocidal murderers ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If black people couldn't vote and there was a politician actively trying to make sure they couldn't get the right to vote, would they not be racist? By your logic, no Being a racist is against a race of certain people like French or German for instance not the colour of someone's skin. Just to educate me , there is a very real activity where some humans vindictivly target people with non white skin based upon that skin colour alone , could you tell me what that action is universally called It happens to people with white skin as well Very observant and it's called ? Well my understanding is that race can be a grouping based on a range of factors including but not exclusive to ethnicity, culture and history, gypsies are classed as a race i believe. So what you describe would be racism. Can you confirm that when black people kill white farmers, for example in Zimbabwe and the President refuses to prosecute the murderers, that is also racism? Shall we just refrain from being pedantic and call it what is? Discrimination.
C
What's pedantic. Are you not aware that some of the far left believe black people cannot be racist?
It's when a person is excessively concerned with minor details or rules. But that's beside the point
C"I have not heard of any person suggesting a skin colour has any impact upon their capacity to be discriminatory ? You may need to check your sources ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If black people couldn't vote and there was a politician actively trying to make sure they couldn't get the right to vote, would they not be racist? By your logic, no Being a racist is against a race of certain people like French or German for instance not the colour of someone's skin. Just to educate me , there is a very real activity where some humans vindictivly target people with non white skin based upon that skin colour alone , could you tell me what that action is universally called It happens to people with white skin as well Very observant and it's called ? Well my understanding is that race can be a grouping based on a range of factors including but not exclusive to ethnicity, culture and history, gypsies are classed as a race i believe. So what you describe would be racism. Can you confirm that when black people kill white farmers, for example in Zimbabwe and the President refuses to prosecute the murderers, that is also racism? Are you trying to establish the obvious that we all sadly know that some humans of all so called races can be incredibly racist , discriminatory and tribal genocidal murderers ?" You say it's incredibly obvious but there are several far left groups who say black people can't be racist. Many of them overlap with support of "LGBT rights", much to the detriment of LGBT people in my opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If black people couldn't vote and there was a politician actively trying to make sure they couldn't get the right to vote, would they not be racist? By your logic, no Being a racist is against a race of certain people like French or German for instance not the colour of someone's skin. Just to educate me , there is a very real activity where some humans vindictivly target people with non white skin based upon that skin colour alone , could you tell me what that action is universally called It happens to people with white skin as well Very observant and it's called ? Well my understanding is that race can be a grouping based on a range of factors including but not exclusive to ethnicity, culture and history, gypsies are classed as a race i believe. So what you describe would be racism. Can you confirm that when black people kill white farmers, for example in Zimbabwe and the President refuses to prosecute the murderers, that is also racism? Shall we just refrain from being pedantic and call it what is? Discrimination.
C
What's pedantic. Are you not aware that some of the far left believe black people cannot be racist?
It's when a person is excessively concerned with minor details or rules. But that's beside the point
C
I have not heard of any person suggesting a skin colour has any impact upon their capacity to be discriminatory ? You may need to check your sources ?"All the founders of black lives matters have said it publicly so do a little research... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If black people couldn't vote and there was a politician actively trying to make sure they couldn't get the right to vote, would they not be racist? By your logic, no Being a racist is against a race of certain people like French or German for instance not the colour of someone's skin. Just to educate me , there is a very real activity where some humans vindictivly target people with non white skin based upon that skin colour alone , could you tell me what that action is universally called It happens to people with white skin as well Very observant and it's called ? Well my understanding is that race can be a grouping based on a range of factors including but not exclusive to ethnicity, culture and history, gypsies are classed as a race i believe. So what you describe would be racism. Can you confirm that when black people kill white farmers, for example in Zimbabwe and the President refuses to prosecute the murderers, that is also racism? Shall we just refrain from being pedantic and call it what is? Discrimination.
C
What's pedantic. Are you not aware that some of the far left believe black people cannot be racist? "And here's the point your offensive defensive deflection of a person's wrong doing , by pointing out the obvious that others have done the same is completely meaningless I disagree with anyone promoting hate or discrimination , Mugabe , Saddam , trump ,isis preachers Certain Christian preachers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's because the different races have different skin colour. How is this not something you know By that logic all British people should be white and all African people be black ? " You are once again confusing nationality and race | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If black people couldn't vote and there was a politician actively trying to make sure they couldn't get the right to vote, would they not be racist? By your logic, no Being a racist is against a race of certain people like French or German for instance not the colour of someone's skin. Just to educate me , there is a very real activity where some humans vindictivly target people with non white skin based upon that skin colour alone , could you tell me what that action is universally called It happens to people with white skin as well Very observant and it's called ? Well my understanding is that race can be a grouping based on a range of factors including but not exclusive to ethnicity, culture and history, gypsies are classed as a race i believe. So what you describe would be racism. Can you confirm that when black people kill white farmers, for example in Zimbabwe and the President refuses to prosecute the murderers, that is also racism? Shall we just refrain from being pedantic and call it what is? Discrimination.
C
What's pedantic. Are you not aware that some of the far left believe black people cannot be racist?
And here's the point your offensive defensive deflection of a person's wrong doing , by pointing out the obvious that others have done the same is completely meaningless
I disagree with anyone promoting hate or discrimination , Mugabe , Saddam , trump ,isis preachers
Certain Christian preachers
"Sorry who was i defending? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If black people couldn't vote and there was a politician actively trying to make sure they couldn't get the right to vote, would they not be racist? By your logic, no Being a racist is against a race of certain people like French or German for instance not the colour of someone's skin. Just to educate me , there is a very real activity where some humans vindictivly target people with non white skin based upon that skin colour alone , could you tell me what that action is universally called It happens to people with white skin as well Very observant and it's called ? Well my understanding is that race can be a grouping based on a range of factors including but not exclusive to ethnicity, culture and history, gypsies are classed as a race i believe. So what you describe would be racism. Can you confirm that when black people kill white farmers, for example in Zimbabwe and the President refuses to prosecute the murderers, that is also racism? Are you trying to establish the obvious that we all sadly know that some humans of all so called races can be incredibly racist , discriminatory and tribal genocidal murderers ? You say it's incredibly obvious but there are several far left groups who say black people can't be racist. Many of them overlap with support of "LGBT rights", much to the detriment of LGBT people in my opinion." No it seems more obvious you have heard such nonsense though indoctrination and propaganda , the same as isis followers have been mis informed A political spectrum would not lead to such a view only delusionan which occurs across the spectrum And again you persist upon a meaningless distraction that only weakens any credibility you might wish to project | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If black people couldn't vote and there was a politician actively trying to make sure they couldn't get the right to vote, would they not be racist? By your logic, no Being a racist is against a race of certain people like French or German for instance not the colour of someone's skin. Just to educate me , there is a very real activity where some humans vindictivly target people with non white skin based upon that skin colour alone , could you tell me what that action is universally called It happens to people with white skin as well Very observant and it's called ? Well my understanding is that race can be a grouping based on a range of factors including but not exclusive to ethnicity, culture and history, gypsies are classed as a race i believe. So what you describe would be racism. Can you confirm that when black people kill white farmers, for example in Zimbabwe and the President refuses to prosecute the murderers, that is also racism? Are you trying to establish the obvious that we all sadly know that some humans of all so called races can be incredibly racist , discriminatory and tribal genocidal murderers ? You say it's incredibly obvious but there are several far left groups who say black people can't be racist. Many of them overlap with support of "LGBT rights", much to the detriment of LGBT people in my opinion. No it seems more obvious you have heard such nonsense though indoctrination and propaganda , the same as isis followers have been mis informed A political spectrum would not lead to such a view only delusionan which occurs across the spectrum And again you persist upon a meaningless distraction that only weakens any credibility you might wish to project "Actually I've seen BLM try to explain, on video, why black people can't be racist so i have no idea what you are talking about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An Ohio lawmaker who routinely touted his Christian faith and anti-LGBT views has resigned after being caught having sex with a man in his office. Wes Goodman, who is the Republican state legislator for Ohio, is married to a woman who is assistant director of an annual anti-abortion rally known as March for Life. The right-wing legislator, who pushed “family values”, was reportedly witnessed having sex with a man inside his office who was not employed by the legislator. Oh the irony!" don't trust everything you read | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
