It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hot Gay Republican Phone Sex (additional Outings)

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 11:52 PM
link   
[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]




posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Do you see the irony? It's the hypocrites that are AGAINST individual's rights that are being outed.And what's "Radical Homosexuals" supposed to mean? The one's who don't hide their sexuality in the closet?


Ah, the Radical Homosexual? Groups like Act Up that forcebly out even non public figures. I live in the SF Bay Area so I have more than a passive knowledge of Gay issues. Even in a climate as accepting as the Bay Area, there are alot of people still in the closet. I also am a Registered Nurse, so alot of the men in the field are gay. Some are out, some are not. A friend recently partially "came out" in talking to him about it, he still has not told his family. Guilt, shame fear of outright rejection are all reasons why he has not come completly out. Would it be okay for me to forcibly inform his family of his sexuality?

I agree there is a huge level of hypocracy with this. I do not hold the ultra right wing of my party dear, but I firmly believe that what happens in the bedroom should stay there (unless you are a porn star
).


RNC goofed big time tonight. Arnold is supposed to be the gay bridge to the Republican Party and he can't drop the girlie men line. I know it's supposed to be "funny" but how is implying anyone is gay and that's an insult endearing, compassionate or proving anything other than Republicans require thier gays in the closet? The man just basically said Either you're with us or you're a fag. Most of America may not see it that way. Or they do and still find it funny, as playground humor is par for the course in this nation. But it's horrible inclusionist strategy.


I really don't think the "girly men" comment is homophobic. At least on Arnold's part. Im sure you are aware of its SNL origins? It was intially said inreference to the Democrats that were stalling on the state budget. The Dems spun it to be a homophobic remark, but it really IMHO was refering to them as wimps. The SF press would have crucified him, but the story was quickly dropped.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by esther
I myself have never understood the radical heterosexual community and their practice of forcing others to conform to their lifestyle for the sake of their own narrow-minded comfort.


Nor have I perhaps if you got off your soap box and read what I posted. I was talking about Groups like ACTUP that will out people that are not even public figures. I for one have never took issue with alternative lifestyles in any way shape or form. Simply because I am against the practice of focible "outing" people, does not make me narrow minded nor homophobic. How narrowmined of you to judge a book by its cover.



Please tell me more explicitly (i.e. actions) about how you define "fringe".


Fringe? Act Up, Earth First groups that take radical action and violate the rights of others to support thier various causes. I also lump in Operation Rescue and any other EXTREMIST group.


Is it okay to forcibly (legally) deny a person their constitutional rights based on their sexuality? No, not if you believe in individual rights. Period.


When did I say that? Where in my posts did I EVER support denying someone a constitutional right? Esther you are guilty of being as narrow minded as the groups you have decried by ASSUMING that because I am a Republican, I am narrow minded and Homophobic and bent on denying anybody thier constitutional rights.

Let me shatter another of your Republican sterotypes: Im an Athiest to boot.... Did you head go pop?



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Gay Republicans? Kill'em. Kill'em all. Enough said.
The gay Republicans. Not true,conservative hetero-Republicans.
Enough said again.

[edit on 1/9/04 by Intelearthling]



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 01:13 AM
link   
[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Couldn't decide between "disingenuois filmmaker" and "girlie man" for a second vanity title, but Arnold really hit it home for me tonight.

Granted it's not the "traitor" I've come to expect and love from the Republicans, but with Ann Coulter on the outs...and Arnold the "new face" of the compassionate RNC...one has to accept reality.

This is current state of politics. From the right anyway. The only thing worse than being soft on Terra is potentially being soft on women.

The argument over whether or not the "girlie man" line is supposed to mean WHIMPS or GAYS really doesn't matter does it? I'm pretty sure when grade schoolers say "Fag" they mean the same thing as wimp, so there ya go.

The Republican National Convention says if you don't agree with tax cuts, you're a fag. PERIOD. I have too much respect for homosexuals though to use the RNC meaning in my title, so I suppose "Girlie Man" will do.

The reason they don't understand why it's upsetting, is because of the basic differences in a conservative mindset and a liberal one. They are incapable of seeing a differing point of view. As the RNC calls the half of the nation that supports Democrats and criticises Bush, "Girlie Men"...let them live with the implications.

Perhaps, in 100 years when the defining speeches of our era are reread and studied, Arnold will be saved by some footnote from an apologist that "girlie man" refers to a 120 year old late night TV skit, so it's not as horrible as it sounds by 2104 standards. Perhaps not.

My greater hope is that this kind of thinking (if not indeed the entire Republican Party) will be the footnote by then.

FTRNC

[edit on 1-9-2004 by RANT]



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 01:44 AM
link   
[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Being gay is okay until you're a Republican/Conservative, then it's the most vile and unnatural attribute possible. Just further evidence of the duplicitous nature of the Liberal/Democrat psyche, and before you throw the hypocrite card on the table, think of all the times you have dismissed the "Shroud of Hypocrisy" which envelopes your favorite liberal... you probably did today...


Wow, that's some spin if I've ever heard it. It's only 'vile' because of who he is, and what he has preached, and the type of measures he has voted for, etc. If he were a Democrat, it would be no different. Party affiliation really means nothing here.


Originally posted by FredT
I really don't think the "girly men" comment is homophobic. At least on Arnold's part. Im sure you are aware of its SNL origins? It was intially said inreference to the Democrats that were stalling on the state budget. The Dems spun it to be a homophobic remark, but it really IMHO was refering to them as wimps. The SF press would have crucified him, but the story was quickly dropped.


Whether it's insulting to gays or not, the fact that it caused such a stir when he used it before, and he didn't seem to think twice about using it again, should say something. I doubt Arnold means for it to be insulting, but him going back to it time and time again, even after some gays raised a stink about it, should have caused him to look more closely at what he is saying. It's not as bad as some of the Democrats make it, while it's not necessarily just a comment that should be shrugged off like Republicans make it; it's somewhere in between. Personally, I would have stopped using it after the first time; you know it's going to offend people, so why do that just for a cheap laugh?



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 03:28 AM
link   
What makes this guy so guilty? A mumbly voice of someone that I'm sure no one here has ever heard speak to confirm actually that it sounds like him? The claims of Michael Rogers? I understood he resigned and didn't address this situation, but after a claim like this has been made against you, you're image will always be tarnished. I'm not by any means claiming his innocence, just the possiblilty he is.

Does liking a romp in the sheets with a guy make him gay? Not in the least. Since I read he's a married, it makes him an adulterer, but he didn't ask for anything "too heavy". What we learned during the previous administration was that not even oral sex is adultery. I also always thought homosexual acts didn't make one homosexual. Bi-sexual maybe, but not homosexual. Doesn't the gay-rights movement want people to get away from thinking of homosexuality as being solely an act? Nowhere have I seen that this man is claimed to have any kind of relationship with a man.

So summarily, and without that much credible info, we've accused a man of being a homosexual hypocrite. Bravo to us! (I hope someone gets that pun
)



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 04:21 AM
link   
If you consider the fact this guy led the charge to repeal the Don't ask, don't tell policy in the military and specifically argued we should ask about sexual preference and history in order to know who to run off (been watching CNN this morning), this guy deserved outing. Big time.

Maybe if the RNC didn't support enforcing sodomy laws (that's oral my friend...see Texas GOP Platform for details), then it wouldn't be such a big deal.

I'm unclear what exactly anyone finds defensible about these GOP positions or his hypocrisy.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys

Originally posted by Bout Time
This is a person who champions vote strategies that will make his "playthings" second class citizens.

They should "Out" every last one of them. ..This guy is a coward; as is anyone who could stand aside & see folks like themselves wronged & do nothing.


This is one issue that Bout Time and I agree on completely.

This man is a taking the lead in supporting a constitutional amendment to deny basic civil rights (guaranteed under the 14th amendment) to a group of Americans based solely on their sexual orientation. A sexual orientation to which he belongs to.

I'm sorry but he had it coming.


please don't brand me as a homophobe, I'm not, I just want to know what basic civil rights are being denied? personally, I don't think the federal Government should be involved in any of these matters, It's a state matter.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jrsdls
I just want to know what basic civil rights are being denied? personally, I don't think the federal Government should be involved in any of these matters, It's a state matter.



Webster's defines civil rights as:

The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.

Maybe that should clear it up when you have a definition of exactly what civil rights are.

And personally, no, I don't think it should be a state's decision. Civil rights should be the realm of the federal government. It should be up to our elected officials to prevent discrimination and work towards equal rights for all, no matter ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Civil rights matters should not be left up to vote; it should not be up for debate. You shouldn't pick and choose who gets which freedoms. If it's a freedom for one, it should be a freedom for all.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join