Till this day, on u4prez, I get private messages from u4prez players questioning how I can be gay and still be a Republican. It boggles the minds of some small minded people. Well this post exists to broaden their narrow scope of thought.
The controversey over my sexual preference began on u4prez when I had the fortune of participating on the site when it was first unleashed into cyberspace.
During those early days, participants came to the new political forum with their beliefs and commonly held perceptions intact. We presented our individual cases and largely kept in tune with the traditional thinking that is expected of the left and right ideologies. As time went on, I became an established figure on the Republican side of the aisle and it was expected of me to preach the virtues of all that was to the right of the spectrum.
Border security, tax reduction, less government and regulation, etcetera, etc. All of these things were neatly in line with popular held perceptions. For some I was u4prez’s version of Alex P. Keaton of the 80’s sitcom Family Ties on which Michael J. Fox portrayed a stereotypical, conservative, young Republican. It was a sentiment also expressed when I was in high school where classmates called me Alex Keaton.
Along the way on u4prez, I tried to go beyond debate and even started the first caucus on u4prez, Liberty4u. It was a bipartisan caucus that forced liberals and conservatives to engage each other in hammering out bipartisan policy positions. That working relationship allowed for many of us in the caucus to get to know each other beyond our avatars and user I.D..
One of the members on that caucus, BluProject, was gay and during a discussion on a particular issue, he raised a question and said that I could not understand where he, a gay man, was coming from.
I said “you wanna bet,…….. I am gay too.”
Weeks later, after BluProject started a u4prez Gay Staraight Alliance caucus, he offered a friendly challenge to me by suggesting that if I was sincere, I would come out and endorse the alliance.
Not only did I endorse the effort, for the first time, I revealed a personal detail about my life to the u4prez universe and disclosed the fact that I was gay. The announcement came out quite simply when on the GSA comment board I wrote, “as a gay man, I endorse the intentions of the Gay Straight Alliance caucus”.
After that statement was written, there seemed to be a collective gasp on u4prez. If you raised the volume on your computer speakers, I swear, you could have heard it.
For days people discussed the disclosure and in the weeks to follow there was a flurry of comments regarding it. Many, if not all, Republicans expressed their shock but quickly followed it with a warm embrace of, if not my lifestyle, my beliefs and continued participation.
Liberals on the other hand could not get over it.
They could not fathom the concept of a gay man being a conservative activists. It was evidence of just how in the box the thinking of liberals are. It showed just how hypocritical liberal thinking was.
They are the first to accuse pious individuals or conservative oriented people of being close minded and intolerant yet they were the ones that could not accept my being a homosexual and a Republican. While fellow Republicans continued to welcome me, activists on the liberal side of the spectrum offered disdain and immature commentary.
The concept did not fit their stereotypical thinking.
This was nothing new to me. In the real world I have found the same thing.
In the real world, Republicans have embraced me as a friend and valued my active participation and input in policy and the process. However, also in the real world, liberals have shunned and belittled me. Fellow gay men have even spat at me because I was a Republican.
It is an example of liberal tolerance or more correctly, intolerance. Everything is fine with them so long as you think like they do. It is a Hitler-like philosophy that rejects any thinking outside of their shallow box.
It is a mentality demonstrated by liberals over and over again.
For them it is a great thing to advance the feminist movement with a strong political woman, but only if she is a liberal woman. If the woman happens to be a conservative, she is the butt of their jokes and focus of their disdain.
If an African-American runs as a Republican, right away, liberal thinkers elude to racial Uncle Sam references and denounce them as fringe candidates but if that African-American is a liberal, he is an example.
Liberals define themselves by stereotypes. Everything fits onto their black and white screen of vision that is camouflaged in brightly colored words of peace and love and equality, yet those words only apply to those who believe as they do, think as they do and fit into their stereotypical molds.
A gay conservative does not fit their stereotypical mold. It shatters it.
I am proud to live my life in a non-stereotypical fashion. As is the case with all human beings, I am unique and I do not want to be a stereotype. I want to be me, not what the world thinks a gay man should be.
Rightly or wrongly, the stereotype of a gay man, still conjures up thoughts of limp wristed , oversexed, scantily clad, flamboyant figures with over the top language and colorful storytelling. That is not me. I am not a stereotype and although I am not a closeted gay man, I do not live my life simply to make the point that I am gay in order to live up to some preconceived notion. I would rather wear a button saying “Kiss me, I’m Republican“ than wear one that says “Kiss me, I‘m Gay”. I would rather be defined by my principles than my sexual activity. One is more meaningful and enduring than the other.
And despite liberal misgivings, being gay and Republican do, in fact, go hand in hand.
Conservatives believe that, as Barry Goldwater once wrote, “government cannot pass laws to make people like each other.” We cannot make people like my being gay just as we cannot legislate liberals to like George Bush. So as a Republican, I do not believe it is government’s place to foist acceptance of my lifestyle on society. I do believe that it is government responsibility to see that I have equal treatment under the law though.
As such, I do support a government applied recognition of same-sex unions, but I do not see a need to change the traditional meaning of marriage as it we know it. I just don’t see a need for government to infringe upon heterosexual traditions. So for me, the liberal argument that suggest I should not be a Republicans because the G.O.P. opposes gay marriage, is nothing but a canard.
Like most real issues facing the gay community, liberals turn topical discussions into wedge issues.
They will claim that redefining the traditional meaning of marriage is the only right thing to do and they refuse to accept same-sex unions as reasonable. They will say that opposition to redefining marriage is opposition to gays when the truth is that many simply oppose attempts to redefine marriage .
Liberals will attempt to increase penalties on a crime committed against a homosexual and they do so knowing that a conservative will not accept making the same crime that is committed against one person, a more serious infringement than if it was committed against another person. But liberals will bring up the issue so that they can use it as a wedge issue between Republicans and gays by claiming that Republicans voted against gay rights when in reality they voted against inequitable enforcement of the law.
Contrary to liberal philosophy, being gay is not a mental disorder that eliminates the thought process of an inflicted individual and puts them on a one track mindset. Not all homosexuals are as monolithic in biased thinking as liberals are.
I am a Republican because I am not a one issue cause. I am a human being who believes in a government that helps to insure equal treatment under its laws and respects my individuality as was the case in California under a Republican Governor named Ronald Reagan
At the time, a California legislator proposed a law that would ban the state from hiring teachers who were gay. Then Governor, Ronald Reagan, struck down the bill claiming it set dangerous precedent that threatened individual rights.
I am a Republican because I believe in a proper defense of my nation that at times requires preemptive actions that can prevent the worst from coming to fruition.
I am a Republican because I am more than just a gay man. I am an American and I do not believe that government is the answer to everything. I do not believe that taking large sums of money away from me and my neighbors helps me keep my head above the rising tide of government inefficiency and waste.
I am a Republican because I believe in the American people more than I do in any government.
I am a Republican because the true principles of my party allow me to be who I want and think as I want without a government that foists its own opinion on me.
I do not live in the Democrat Party’s political ghetto of monolithic thought and hypocrisy created by liberal philosophy. And although I have issues with some in my party I value the principles that form its existence. For me, I believe some in my party have lost sight of the conservative principles that first got them elected. And yes, there are some right wingers that, in my opinion, dwell on hate and bigotry, almost as many as exist in the liberal party.
With those, I will continue to struggle and explain that they cannot expect me to discard an integral part of my being and I cannot expect government to foist my lifestyle upon them.
In the mean time, I remain a proud Republican.
While liberals label people as homophobes and bigots because they do not accept the entire homosexual agenda, I continue to strive for an American agenda.
While the liberal agenda creates fractures and wedges that focus on our differences, my agenda does not segregate society and thinking into political ghettos. Unlike them, I do not believe that all blacks must be Democrats or all good women must be liberals. I do not expect all gay men or women to have a narrow view of life that focuses on only one issue.
My agenda is an all encompassing one. One that tries to achieve governments blind application of fair and equitable laws to all people regardless of thinking, color, sex or orientation. It is an agenda that seeks to weave the the rag tag fabrics of our American quilt together, not divide them.
So although, narrow minded liberals may not be able to fathom how a gay man can be a Republican, I see my being a gay Republican as a natural fit.
The gay struggle for the freedom to live our lives the way we choose in order to pursue happiness is the keystone to conservative thought. It is the same struggle that founded this country. The same struggle that was fought to achieve religious freedom and independence and it is that struggle which helps makes my being gay and Republican a natural partnership.
Republicans have traditionally fought for less government and less control. They have also fought for equality.
From the civil war and the days of Lincoln to the passage of civil rights legislation which only saw the light of day because of Republicans support, the party of Lincoln remains a good fit for me.
The plight for gay equality is not one that I avoid. It is one I fight on two fronts. On the extreme religious right I fight fanatical attempts to make mortal interpretations of religious doctrines into unsuitable federal law that deny gays rights. On the extreme left I fight equally closed minded, peddlers of hatred who claim everyone who refuses to give gays special rights are bigots.
So here, I stand in the middle.
I do not wish to inflict my personal choices on others and I do not seek to have someone’s personal decisions injected into my life. Here in the middle, I am comfortable with my commitment to the Republican principles that defend my rights, respects my individuality and defends me against injustice and foreign and domestic enemies.
For me, thinking outside of the liberal box and living outside of the one sided liberal political ghetto offers much more freedom and opportunity than the shallow parameters of their philosophy. For me being a Republican, represents all that makes me an American. Not a straight American or gay one. Not a black or white man , or Catholic or Jewish American, just an American. A great American.
|
|
| |
|
|
So do I wiz.......
In case folks forgot. I was here from the beginning
Kemp was brought out as gay without his permission, not only that he was attacked for HIV/ AIDS. Then he was nailed to the wall for "cheating" ........In reality nothing anywhere close to what other "prominant cheaters" have done. He is a man who got knocked down and got up again and is standing Tall.............. that I respect!!!!
LOL musicman, his plight? His condition? Yes I agree, I hope that some day we find a cure.
I think this blog describes his plight best.......... Many call me religious right. Ask kemp how brutal I am for his condition.
Kempite should have won for another blog. This was not his best. And most of the debate was Arjay and Imagine trying to prove that the founding fathers were not christians. I think this is a bit of a throwback to the olden times of U4prez. But congratulations for the win.
I never doubted......... Kempy thinks well says well and posts well Congrats kemp well done!!!!!
A great rep for the GOP!!!!!
Just curious... What the hell does this mean... ------------------------ "I'd just like to say that I am a Republican, and if I were to find other men's anuses and genitalia sexually attractive, I would probably be gay too, as I prefer the company of other men." ----- ???
If Kempite hadnt won this contest, I would have been pissed off! Nice job Kemp, lots of excellent blogs, good information... with and without your personal touch. I am still stewing a little about arjay taking second place (nothing personal, I have a certain amount of respect for arjay.)... with a blog with only FIVE comment entries, one being from himself, and 2 each from 2 others. I just wonder WTF that is about. Anyway, Congratulations Kempite!!!
Lol....Thank you Fat, for your kind and generous words. It is appreciated.
Congratulations, Kempite for your winning blog. In fact, it could have been any number of excellent blogs you've written. I'd just like to say that I am a Republican, and if I were to find other men's anuses and genitalia sexually attractive, I would probably be gay too, as I prefer the company of other men. Keep up the good work.
Fat
*fear
Nice post progress, I think most ignorant people believe, because I am a Christian I want to put a steeple on the white house and shut down all mosques and temples and make Baptist the official religion. That is not what I want to do. I want every religion to be free to worship without fer of the Libtards and the ACLU and Christianity takes the most of that abuse- not Islam, not Buddhists
Imagine, I think you are mistaking the founding fathers frustration w/ organized religion as a condemnation of Christianity in general. Even I have issues w/ organized religion; but I still profess the Christian canon. John Adams in particular, based on the many letters he and his wife wrote back and forth, was a firm believer in the Christian faith.
well you had better like the idea's Kemp because republicans loathe gays and any gay person who is a republican is what an uncle tom was to blacks.
well you had better like the idea's Kemp because republicans loathe gays and any gay person who is a republican is what an uncle tom was to blacks.
Hahahahahaha.
I thought all Republicans are homosexuals. lol
No David I wasn't. My Kudos to the first person who even knows what he was recognized for writing
Grr I believe you`re referring to Carter BRaxton
I see you don't know who Blaxton was.
Jefferson did indeed write down what the founding fathers said. He was also the "author" of the legislation that said if the natives dont comply with our wishes then they need to be killed so that we the "civilized" people can have more room.
He was also a slave owner and was totaly for slavery. He by his life style and convictions obviously just wrote the document. He didn't believe in the principals within unless it benifited him. Try again
Jefferson authored the Declaration and Paine was responsible for getting the revolution off the ground. They were founding fathers. Sorry if they don't fit into this ridiculosu idea that the founding fathers were right wing conservative Christians. they were actually early secular progressives, and the most liberal liberals of their day.
The Fact remains, they werent founding fathers.
Does anyone know who John Blaxton was?
But they disagreed with the Constitution. But swore an oath to it on a bible. And violated the Constitution as a joke. Although the Lousianna Purchase was unconstitutional it was a great gig.
How do we know freemasons didn't use their names to enhance their membership? That has been done often. Like I said before truth gets distorted over time and mans manipulations. I have also heard as gospel that Ben Franklin was porkin Washington in the ass. Just because it's said or written by some gloryhoud theorist doesn't make it true. We really know very little about those times, but to hear some talk all the fathers were partying with Laudnum, Pot, Cocaine, and trying out homosexuality to see what they liked best.
It doesn't make it true
And like I said the other night when Wiz was making this argument, it takes a whole lot of spin to say the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and Common Sense were not Founding Fathers.
Jefferson authored the declaration of independence and Paine was the father of the revolution. They were founding fathers.
By that definition political partys of any type are cults as well as liberalists, diests, and aithists. Oh yes and anti- theists as well
I thought it was common knowledge about Freemasons. Here's a site that lists a whole lot of Masons, past and present: http://www.masonicinfo.com/famous1.htm
As wiz pointed out.Jefferson Paine and Adams weren't founding fathers.
I wouldn't call the founders a cult. they were free thinking people. When I think of cults, i think of a group of people that goes along with whatever their group officially believes.
I don't know how this conversation made it to this page. Like I stated clearly before. Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and John Adams did not sign the constitution. They are not our founding fathers. Just two of them became presidents, because they were anti federalists. And that cult got shot down real quick.
posted by thewiz on 02/27/2009 @ 8:23 PM
Great point wiz, you're pretty sharp sometimes
Many, if not most, of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons. Isn't there something that just doesn't sit right? Doesn't their cult violate a commandment or something, the one saying Thou shalt not have any gods before me, or something?
posted by arjay on 02/27/2009 @ 8:17 PM
I must ask you to prove that, not that it isn't possible but
The capitol depicts george washington as Christ. And Washington's tomb is empty. Like Jesus's tomb is empty? The founding fathers were up to something. its really complicated. Youll have to do some research if youre interested.
Yeah I think its a bit sickening. George Washingtons monument is nothing but a giant phallic symbol. Nothing has changed. Men of power go to San Fransisco and worship a Giant Owl God called Molluck and have gay sex. Its called Bohemian grove. All of these things are graven symbols. Even the Statue of Liberty is an absurd statue dedicated the Hera. Its all very sacrilgious.
Heres a link if anyone is interested
http://www.williamhenry.net/art_temple.html
Georg
e Washington is portrayed as a Christilike figure in our nations capitol.
I don't know how this conversation made it to this page. Like I stated clearly before. Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and John Adams did not sign the constitution. They are not our founding fathers. Just two of them became presidents, because they were anti federalists. And that cult got shot down real quick.
George Washington is portrayed as a God in some of our nations artwork at our government buildings. Literally he is portrayed in the same manner Christ had been portrayed in paintings. Look into it. "American Rite" and "National Treasures" by William Henry. Check it out.
Many, if not most, of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons. Isn't there something that just doesn't sit right? Doesn't their cult violate a commandment or something, the one saying Thou shalt not have any gods before me, or something?
Ben Franklin liked the French more and their ungodly ways. The French Revolution was hell on earth, Christians were persecuted and beheaded en masse. Ben was a rockstar in France. Kinda like Ozzy Osborne with a bit of Hugh Hefner in him. HE was an absolutly morally corrupt man for his day. But so were alot of men. I just don't understand your point. Ben Franklins works vs. the man. Are you suggesting that all men that were not as morally vacant as Ben Franklin should be tossed aside for their work?
Benjamin Franklin, Thoams Jefferson, Thomas Paine and John Adams. I count 4 prominent founding fathers that express and aversion to the bible and the church and 2 that didn't comment on their personal beliefs but strongly supported separation of church and state. I've only been using the example of these 6 because they seem to be the most important of our founders.
Ben fraklin would also screw a goat with herpes if he got the urge, He was the biggest proponent of enlightenment philosophy in the colonys I don't deny that.However we have narrowed it down to just two fathers now haven't we. As opposed to the blanket statement "the founding fathers hated the bible and christianity" (paraphrazed)
He occaisionally went met with the Hellfire Club, a group said to have performed black masses, engaged in drunken orgies and criticized Chistianity. At the age of 16, Benjamin Franklin, under the psudonumn Silence DooGood, was writing articles criticizing the puritanism of the day.
Ben Franklin attended a Satanic church. I think he killed a couple hookers too.
Ok. "I find in Christianity, not one redeeming feature"-Thomas Jefferson. The statements made by the founding fathers would support my assertions.
Incorrect Imagine, they openly stated their aversion to the CHURCH OF ENGLANDS DOMINATION!!!
not Jesus Christ nor the Christian faith. They condemed the witch burners in Salem for the same reasons
Washington and Madison didn't speak too much of their own relgiious beliefs, however they wer fierce supporters of the separation of church and sate. Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams openly stated their aversion to the church and the bible.
you are in severe error there Imagine. In the first place, you mention the few diests that followed the Europian "enlightenment" theorys. In the second place George Washington never made public what his religious views were. Were you in his bedroom when he prayed? If you are reprisenting the socialist party along with Arjay get your facts straight he doesn't fudge. Read the storys of ALL the founding fathers and signers of the constitution and you will find that the "christian right" that you seem to hate so much were the ones who fought and paid in blood for our freedom. Please give them the respect they are due.
I'm goingto paraphrase this Thomas Jefferson quote because I love it: "I'm a Christian in the only way Jesus ever intended anyone to be. A follower of his teaching." The Christian right thinks the founders were these right wing evangelicals. Read "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine which was a best seller back i our founders' day. And watch "American Rite" by William Henry if you can.
Actually, Thomas Jefferson was so dissatisfied with the Bible that he sought his own. Knowing the four books of the Gospel were basically telling the same story, he spliced them all together and rewrote it in a smoother prose. They still print the Jefferson Bible to this day. I'm not sure whose argument that helps, but there you go.
So you admit that the founding fathers were not the devout Christains that some here are impyign they were? Hawk, you're problem isn't with me. it's with yourself. You made outlandish claims that America was founded on Christianity when virtually none of its founders were actually Christians. I'm sorry the facts don't support your ridiculous claims. Actually I'm not. I'm glad our founders were not far right Christians.
Regarding PaulCain's comments, I belive he a bit confused and while he is entitled to his opinion he goes right to some of the thinking that i discussed in my post when I wrote "I will continue to struggle and explain that they cannot expect me to discard an integral part of my being and I cannot expect government to foist my lifestyle upon them."
Unfortunately PaulCain's thinking confuses the G.O.P. with the Vatican and unfortunately it is the type of erroneous thinking that gives conservatives a bad name much the same way that
Imagine89 gives liberals a bad name.
Fuck you you little twerp. I have read many books concerning the founding of this nation. I have also read through the papers of the time. Again FUCK you. I am done with you and your highhorse crap. You are nothing more than a bottom feeding little prick. You will grow up to be a good liberal, maybe even a college proffesor, you would fit in well with the pompous atmosphere.
Maybe you should actually read what people like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and so on actually said their religious beliefs were. You'll find that none were "Christians". I've read a good bit about the topic, and i've foudn that basically all of the founding fathers believed in one God who created the universe. Most of them believed God intervened in human affairs. Their opinions of Christ varied. And most all of them had no use for the Bible or the Church. Read something once in a while, Hawk. Turn off Limbaugh's show and actually read something writtn by smart Americans...like the founding fathers who believed in God, science, freedom, democracy and themselves.
There goes imagine... cant just debate, he must go to the gutter and begin the personal slams and the name calling... Good job,, typical liberal.
YES!!!! Get over it. In God we Trust, Place your hand on the Bible, We are endowed by our creator, I could go on but I am sure you get the point.
So "creator" is synonymous with "god of the Bible"? really?
Under pressure from the public the 2 cent coin was inscripted with "in god we trust". It was not untill 1957 that the phrase first appeared on paper money. I didn't say the phrase isn't on our money. I said when the founding fathers were drawing up the consitution they didn't rush out to write God on our money. As I said Trish, you know jack shit about anything else, why should I expect that you know anything about this topic. You make ridiculous claims constantly and never back them up with any facts. You listed "BET" as a right that black people have that gives them a higher status than whites. You're unbelievable haha.
we do have rights that were given to us by our Creator.... sounds like God was referenced when that was mentioned. In fact you can go back to many of the documents from that time and see that our country was indee founded on Judeo Christian values. The fact that you can find some statements that would argue against that does not make it less of a fact. I also believe i the seperation of Church and State, not to the extent that some of you lefties do. I think if a coach on the High School football team wants to join in with the kids during prayer before a game should not be a court case. I think if my elected officials decide to put up a sign in early Novemeber in the park that says Merry Christmas that should not be a court case. And when you say the founders would disagree it makes me think that your ego is getting a bit out of control. I don't think there is any way for you to know for sure that they would. Now you could say that your read sometihng that makes you think they might disagree but to dsay without a doubt that they would just makes me laugh and disregard the reats of your comment.
Why do you idiots need to repeat yourselves? Are you having seizures or something? Why was 'In God We Trus' never taken OFF of our money??? I wont get too deep with you Imagine, you are nothing but a blind kool-aid sipper.
I actually stand corrected. No one needs to mention it, I found it for myself. Fred Phelps is actually a Democrat. Ran for governor of Kansas and the US Senate many times, never got out of the Democratic primaries. Supported Al Gore in the 1988 presidential race. Still a whackjob, regardless of party. The original question still stands, what Phelps' position on all this?
Trish, do you actually think our founding fathers were the ones that started printing "In God we trust" on out money and stuff? It wouldn't surprise me if you do think that because you don't seem to know much about anything else either.
I can't figure out why a man finds another man sexually attractive, it is beyond my ability to comprehend.... ====== I dont understand how a woman would find a fat 5 foot 6 man attractive either, but I know some who are married and have sex lol.
Trish, do you actually think our founding fathers were the ones that started printing "In God we trust" on out money and stuff? It wouldn't surprise me if you do think that because you don't seem to know much about anything else either.
Trish, do you actually think our founding fathers were the ones that started printing "In God we trust" on out money and stuff? It wouldn't surprise me if you do think that because you don't seem to know much about anything else either.
What are we a Muslim nation?!
What are we a Muslim nation?!
The founders of our country would disagree that America was founded on Christian values. Men liek Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were critics of the church and the Bible andthey were also fierce supporters of separation of church and state. The United States surley was not founded on Christianity or its principles. The founding fathers believed in God, but most of our prominent founders were not Christians in the way we think of. And by the way, check out William Henry's "American Rite" if you ever have a chance. (notice it's R-I-T-E)
IN GOD WE TRUST! Have you ever had a dollar???
PaulCain, you need to go crawl back under the dirty rock you have been under for the past year, well, your whole life evidently. You are SICK SICK SICK!!!
Have you ever heard of the Constitution? Dude, you need to get a grip. I don't agree with the gay lifestyle, I am against Gay Marriage, I don't understand it at all, I can't figure out why a man finds another man sexually attractive, it is beyond my ability to comprehend.... but, I have gay friends, my brother is gay and I don't care what people do behind closed doors. I also consider myself a Christian but, I believe in the seperation of Church and State. I believe in the Constitution and I believe that God will sort all of this out later. To say we are a Country that was founded on Judeo Christian values I believe is a true statement but, we allow for a person to have any religious belief or none at all.
Since when is this a Christian country?
I hate the sin too. But gays need to realize that they are sick and need help. We can't help the sinners before they see that their behavior is WRONG ,WRONG ,WRONG and can't be accepted in a Christian country.
I hate the sin too. But gays need to realize that they are sick and need help. We can't help the sinners before they see that their behavior is WRONG ,WRONG ,WRONG and can't be accepted in a Christian country.
I hate the sin too. But gays need to realize that they are sick and need help. We can't help the sinners before they see that their behavior is WRONG ,WRONG ,WRONG and can't be accepted in a Christian country.
wow, that was a bit over the top. I hate the sin not the sinner. You seem to hate the sinner and that is not Christian like.... you will not be allowed to comment on the GOP from this moment forward.
If Republicans can be gay that proves that the GOP is a liberal party. Homosexuality is sick,wrong and immoral. Any true conservative understands that. If the GOP approves of it it might just as well approve of Obama's socialism or his support for terrorists. If Republicans accept gayness as anything other than the unchristian disease it, is they reject the traditional American family and are no better than the Democraps.
RJ, are you saying that you know his party affiliation? I don't know that he is a Republican. I hope he is not. He does not represent any of my values nor does he represent the values of my party. I could say that he is a socialist.........
I always try to be fair minded. I just like to ask questions of people when they confuse me.
DEMO....I know that you are not trying to take sides but I thank you for being fair minded. However, it is probably best to just let Arjay be Arjay and be rediscovered for what he is through his normal conduct.
As long as you are not reaching for "special rights" we have no disagreements. Either way it took guts to write this blog. Have a great day!!
Arjay, I am going to say something that WILL come off as mean or bitchy but that is not the intent. Get over it. For whatever reason, you have been out to get Kemp ever since the old days of the site. Why? What is the sole purpose of bashing him every time you get a chance? Kemp could tell you "I agree with you" on something and you would see it as some type of conspiracy or something. What EXACTLY is your issue with Kemp?
Thank you Grrrr
KT.......Your interpretation of that could have come from the fact you are ignoring that by qchieving equal legal treatment for same-sex unions is not a seperate but equal policy. It is a term creating a clear legal definition of the type of marriage we are talking about.
For instance you and I are humans. But I am man and you are woman. Is my calling you a woman an act of seperate but equal policies.
Think about rationally.
Having said that, Hawk and Wiz, do you really think Phelps is registered as anything other than a Republican? Sorry you don't like some of the characters in your party. But that's what happens when you belong to a bigtent party which claims there's room for EVERYONE. You're going to get a few dingbats.
RSOBIEN.....there are churches that will marry same-sex couples and in the eyes of that religious denomination or sect they may very well be willing to call it a marriage, in fact many do. However, what does that have to do with a non-religious name for a legally binding contract between same-sex couples?
Their is a diffrence between a union of a man and man and a woman and man.
The refusal to acept that diference is the major legal hurdle to legal equality on the issue.
It is just like discussing population in the United States. There are some blacks, there are some whites and hispanics and asians, etc. When we take a census do you not have to address what kind of American you are. Do you not have to list ethnicity or does being an American erase your ethnic makeup.
You may be white but you are still an American.
The same here. You may be married but what kind of marriage is it? Is it a homosexual marriage or a heterosexual marriage.
Now I know you may ask what difference does it make, but to that I will ask you again what diffrence does ethnicity make.
We are what we are and things get called what they are. I see no need to change the meaninfg of the word marriage when under the eyes of law the same legal treatment can be given to something called a domestic union.
Kemp - I'm wondering the same thing about why calling a same sex union a marriage is a big deal. Marriage is a term I feel is best left to the religion or church performing it, and not for the government to define. Not all religions forbid it, and there are churches in the Christian religion that support it. I'm not talking about forcing it on anyone... I'm talking about allowing it for those who are open to it.
I applaude your blog sir. I think it smacks of honesty wih ones self, therefore honesty with others. Well done!!!
so i see you are down with "sepreate but equal", Kemp??!! b/c that is what i am gathering from you last comment
RSOBIEN.....Since when is doing correct thing politically the wrong thing? That is an example of liberal thinking. It is the very liberal hypocrisy that I wrote about. It is only correct when a liberal thinks it or does it. And if maarriage is just a word, why is the word union in the phrade domestic union, also not just word.
Why can it only be unsettling to call a same sex union between two men a same sex union and it is not allowed to call a union between men a marriage.
They are only words and through words laws are created.
Hawk - I think "radical religious right" would be more accurate for Phelps. It's the difference between being devout (perhaps a little overly so in some cases) and being an extremist. The only difference between Phelps and a Muslim extremist is that Phelps is a coward, cheering them on in their attacks as opposed to doing the attacks himself.
RJ, are you serious? Are you saying that Phelps is part of the religious right? The Republican party does not have room for Phelps nor does Christianity. The guy is a nut job, his church is made up of family members and I for one want nothing to do with him. Unlike the Democrats who wlecome, even celebrate someone like William Ayers, the Republican party has values and principles and will not associate with someone like Phelps.
Kemp... the word "traditional marriage" is thrown around entirely too often. "Traditional" is relative. Take for instance the ancient celts. They had several different degrees of marriages/unions that were recognized in an official sense, including a 7th degree union, which is basically a one night stand. Additionally, you might find this article interesting, speaking of same-sex marriage/unions in history. Bottom line is that marriage is simply a word... and calling it anything less for the sake of appeasing is political correctness at it's worst.
WIZ,... in answer to your question, I was in a situation like that. It was a fundraiser and a state senator was talking to a group of four of us. The Senator did not know I was gay and he made a passing reference to an establishment that was near where the fundraiser was being held. He said something along the lines of not bending over to pick anything up. I did not take offense to the remark, but a collegue of mine, who knew I was gay, did. I think he was just being overly sensitive to my feelings and how I took the passing joke.
By the way, at a different event, I was with this same state senator and right before he got up to address a group of senior citizens who had a problem with some local services, he leaned over and said to me, "you know what there real problem is? They live too long.
He was the chairman of the Senate Senior Services Committee.
The first time I heard of Phelps and his merry band was from the Howard Stern show. He had Shirley Roper Phelps on as a frequent guest. It was only later that Hannity got ahold of her and gave her a talking too. I don't know where you are getting that there is an open door policy in the Republican party for Phelps.
No, what I see in Phelps is a whackjob at the fringe who gets a lot of airtime these days because the Republicans have allowed the Religious Right to set up shop in their party. But when the Republican Party relies on the so-called evangelicals to come out and vote for their bad candidates, you're opening the door for cats like Phelps to make names for themselves by going to funerals chanting GOD HATES FAGS. I don't think Phelps represents anyone but himself and his own special brand of homophobia, but then again, I don't see many of the Prop 8 crowd distancing themselves from him.
David, They are real. Like I said a few posts back: " I actually had a confrontation with the Phelps people a couple years ago. They were picketing in Dover, DE (where i am) and a friend of mine and I got up early and went to all their stations and harrassed them. They called my friend a worthless liberal and she practically has a shrine to Ann Coulter at home."
LOL I know I`m just bashing my least favorite Christians in the world.Or,scum who calls themselves Christians,when they`re really CINOs,Christian In Name Only.Because I have been to several Christian churches in my life,all of them Baptist,BTW,and NONE of them have EVER preached the vileness,hatred,or the cruelty that these wackos spew.Sometimes I wonder if they`re even real.because if they are,they`re pretty fuked up
I do not gamble on things I know I will lose. Seems pointless to me.
Who wants to bet that the Phelps children are inbreds?
Bingo Wiz. I actually had a confrontation with the Phelps people a couple years ago. They were picketing in Dover, DE (where i am) and a friend of mine and I got up early and went to all their stations and harrassed them. They called my friend a worthless liberal and she practically has a shrine to Ann Coulter at home.
Yeah me too Demo. I look at Fred Phelps and his church as a bunch of losers. I pay not attention to them really and if they vote conservative then fine. But I think the sensitive liberal types like Arjay look at Phelps and see the tip of the iceburg.
I have to agree with Wiz here.
Arjay, That is like saying all Christians are pushy evangelicals. I may be an atheist but, I do have Christian friends who are not pushers of their faith and they accept me for my lack thereof. You are stereotyping here and that is not right at all. I know far more liberals that profile and judge far more than any conservative I know.
I wanna know if Kempite has ever been around some people in his party and not knowing there was a gay man in the room heard a gay joke and was offended. Reason being is that the liberal Democrats are so hell bent on not offending anyone they ostracize anyone that is even slightly verbose about social issues. Which is probably a major reason why being conservative was a more freeing experience.
Then I guess the important question is, who is more representative of the current Republican Party, Kempite or Phelps?
I think we ALL know what Fred Phelps' answer will be and none of us will like it.
Did anyone ask Fred Phelps his position on this?
Homosexuals can be Republicans because the Republican party does not truly stand for anything. It is only slapped with the conservative/ anti-gay label because that happens to be the currnet majority in the party. People shoulnd't be up in arms about a gay Republican because the Republican doesn't know which way is up or what it stands for. There are Republicans who feel that Kemp's right to marry a man and be gay is his right and shouldn't be left up to the government to decide. There are other Republicans who think that gay couples are sneaking up on heterosexual couples and their family just as they are about to sit down for a nice meal and then the gays will break into their house and threaten them with knives. See what I mean by the Republican party standing for nothing?
RSobien and that brings me back to an initial argument in which I state that is no ones place to redefine the traditional meaning of marriage inside or outside of religion. If the granting of non-religious, government acknowledged domestic unions allows for equal treatment under the law, than what is the problem?
Kemp - while marriage is the domain of the states, Constitutional rights such as freedom of religion come first, according to the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." So, while states may be Constitutionally allowed to pick and choose to an extent who they allow to marry, they aren't allowed to deny a marriage because of religious dogma.
sure dipshit', with his 68% approval rating, with the Democrats 43% approval rating in congress, and with 18% approval rating for republi-turds, that says it all!! Only people who think Elvis is still alive, retards and the insane think Obama is a communist.
Why? Because he`s got a D after his name and because he`s about as every bit as Communist as yourself Lib4Nutjob?
Gay, straight whatever, why on earth would anyone want to be a republi-turd? After Obama's speech tonight, PLease tell me anyone misses that Republi-turd asshole' from Texas....George W Bush!!! OBAMA IS THE SHIT'!!!!!!
Progress....Good point but by the same token, the federal government does not issue marriage licenses, the states do and as such I believe the issue is one that should be left up to the states. I do however believe that the bully pulpit of the Presidency should be used to urge states to accept domestic union licenses. I feel that their is no need for the state to change the name of traditional marriage licenses but they do need to have a formula that allows offers equal legal treatment for same sex and opposite sex unions.
When the California Supreme Court ruled that the state could not give licenses to heterosexual couples without giving them to homosexuals as well; many of the state's licensing offices, particularly in conservative areas, just simply stopped giving out any. I actually agree with that sentiment; albeit for different reasons. The state should stop giving out marriage licenses; and simply have domestic partnerships or civil unions. Let the church define marriage however they want.......I will even go so far as to say that multiple marriages should be allowed; with stipulations in place protecting minors and human rights.......MF
AND I SUPPORT THAT ACTION. Those couples need "civil contracts". The "marriage" needs to be church only. If they need a paper stating that the church "married them in the eyes of God" they need to take it up with the church. This is TRUE seperation of church and state.
Then if we arent letting gays get "married" the feds and the states better revoke the marriage lisenses of everyone.
BUT the word "Marriage" is the religious part. The government need not be in the "marriage" business. THAT should be STRICTLY a church function. The govt. should only hand out "Civil Unions" or contracts. NOTHING MORE.
Don't force the churhc to marry them. I'm straight. I could marry my girl at he courthouse if I wanted to. Let the gays get married at the courthouse.
Religious texts were written long before a single law and any texts in the foundation of this country were written. Though, I am not a fan of ANY religion, in order for seperation of church and state to work, it has to be done completely. The secular world cannot infringe upon religion AND religion cannot infringe on the secular world. The minute we tell churches be them: Christian, Judaic, Hindu, Muslim, or whatever how to run their organization we are handing over our rights not to be dictated to as well. Any time the left starts preaching the bigotry of those not wanting to infringe our beliefs onto churches they are proving Kempite right. It comes down to "we want equality for all as long as....."
What religion dictates marriage, Demo? I hope its Christianity or Judaism so I can convince 200 sets of parents to force their sexy daughters to marry me haha.
lol, lucky.
I thought all Republicans were homosexual. hmm?
with that argument the hard-right wins imagine. and yes, marriage is a religious institution.
Marriage is religious? Do we get guidelines for marriage from the Bible? If so, I should be able to marry 200 women. Do we get the religious guidelines for marriage from Church history...like Pope Alexander the VI? If so, I should be able to force my very young daughter to marry an older man she never saw before so I can gain political power. The "religious" arguement for marriage fails so hard unless you want to legalize polygamy and promote arranged marriages.
I am 1/2 gay and have a gay brother and do not support gay marriage in t he way it is being demanded. Marriage is a religious institution and the government needs to get out of the marriage business and allow civil unions for ALL. Churches should not have their beliefs intruded upon. THAT is unconstitutional. It is in my profile.
How do I define equal rights? Heterosexuals have the right to get married. Our homosexual brothers and sisters should have the right to marry as well.
Hey I am a Ron Paul Republican so how do you like that? lol its like pro-gun Dems
see: http://www.logcabin.org
Can you define "Equal Rights" Imagine? How do you see it?
But the general consensus among Republicans si that gays don't deserve equal rights. How could a gay person be part of that group no matter how many other issues they agree on?
I do agree that the current GOP is nothing like Lincoln's or Teddy's though with Teddy it is close when it comes to being an empire over seas. But other then that Kemp does have an interesting point.
I thought this was very well done and if all is okay with Kemp, I would like to show this to my brother. My brother is gay and basically sees it as impossible to be gay and conservative. As if that feat were as difficult as defying gravity.
Kenpite, using the word "liberal" constantly doesn't mean you win. Get a dictionary. And if you are comparing the Republican Party of Lincoln to the current Republican party, you're delusional. Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelts party was nothing like the current Republican party. Your flamboyant ignorance is irritating.
Kenpite, using the word "liberal" constantly doesn't mean you win. Get a dictionary. And if you are comparing the Republican Party of Lincoln to the current Republican party, you're delusional. Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelts party was nothing like the current Republican party. You flamboyant ignorance is irritating.
I agree with Mad's assessment. I am a straight Republican and support gay marraige. It doesn't make me less of a Republican. I feel marraige is a legal document provided by the states and refusal to grant that license to 2 consenting adults is discrimination in my book. Only when we let go of the tiny typecasts that we have embedded in our heads can we truly move forward. Labels need to be lifted. Race, sex, religion and sexual orientation should have no bearing on a persons political thought.
I don't see why a homosexual would join a party that fights against their equality. Even if they agree with the party on every other issue, they don't agree that you should have equal rights. This is nto disagreeing on an issue. I'm well aware that not all republicans agree on all issues, but when the party you join thinks you don't deserve equal rights, how could you go along with that. It's ridiculous.
Sexual orientation is just one part of a person. I support libertarian positions in every area except abortion. The reason why I am pro-life (except when a mother's life is in danger) is because of the premise that we are all created equal. And if we are all equal, we should have the equal right to live. Being pro-life does not disqualify me from being a libertarian.
What I'll say is this: the Republican party today would barely be recognizable to Lincoln. In his day, Republicans were actually fairly progressive... and the old school Democrats were quite conservative... like Woodrow Wilson, for example. As we work through a political system in which parties are not defined so much by name, the parties tend to change ideals over time with only one thing guaranteed: they will disagree with each other, if only for the sake of disagreement. Currently, the Republican party is the party of conservatives, conservative meaning traditional values. Sadly, homosexuality does not fit in with traditional values, which is why we hear so much about any Republican who is even suspected of homosexuality while homosexual liberals are considered non-news. Obviously, it is not impossible for a homosexual to be a Republican... difficult, yes. Impossible, no. It's even possible that one may bring spectacular change to the Republican party, much as JFK did for the Democrats. Until that time comes however, it's difficult for many people not to imagine a bunch of suicidal lemmings doing belly-flops off a cliff.
It's not Kempite's mind I seek to change, Pro. It's those who read this, thinking he's talking about something serious, when all he is is a hack. I would have loved to have read a deep, meaningful blog based on the title, but Kempite cheated everyone out of what could have been an insightful essay and, instead, offered just another partisan hackjob. My job here is to say, hey, reader, this is what Kempite does, he is obsessed with bashing liberals, don't bother reading it, just watch some Fox News or listen to some Sean Hannity, it's a lot less effort than taking Kempite as an original and serious thinker.
Kempite is a lost cause, Arjay. Give it up! He is Republican through and through. There is nothing than any of us can say to change his mind. Personally, I can respect that. At least he is consistent and a true believer in what he says. Moreso than many others on this site who seem to change their views like candles in the wind. At least Kempite has attempted to reach out across the aisle on many occasions. We could use more of this kind on both sides.
It's not me who is so obsessed with liberals that I mentioned them TWENTY-TWO TIMES in an article allegedly having to do with the so-called Gay Republican. TWENTY-TWO TIMES, Kempite. You did it, not me, don't start blaming me for your shortcomings yet again. I didn't put a gun to your head and tell you to bag on liberals TWENTY-TWO TIMES. Stop blaming me for your obsessions. Take a little responsibility for your actions.
ARJAY(Sybil),
Once again I went against my better judgment and read a comment of yours. I know better, but I did it anyway. I know that you only exist to make yourself look and feel superior. I know that your reality falls short of your hopes and dreams and so you have lost yourself in am unreal world where you are a crusading superhero delivering justice for all. The problem is that you sit alone in your comic book fantasy.
You avoid reality and need to build yourself up by tearing down those around you.
If you were a child, I might pity you for your challenged development but you are an adult, or at least you claim to be one, so I do not pity you. I just know, in the future, to ignore you.
Proof of that fact is made evident in your childish little rant suggesting that I do not address the heart of this post.
Your obsession with me has you counting my words and following my agenda. It has you establishing boycotts of me and making me out to be much more of an issue than I make myself out to be or than I am.
The fact that you claimed I do not address the point that I direct my article to, apparently comes from a lack of your not knowing what else to write. It is either that or a severe reading comprehension problem that you have.
Perhaps your math is better than your reading. If so you can follow the number of direct quotes which counter your
conclusion:
-----------------------------------
--------
1.-Contrary to liberal philosophy, being gay is not a mental disorder that eliminates the thought process of an inflicted individual and puts them on a one track mindset. Not all homosexuals are as monolithic in biased thinking as liberals are.
2.- I am a Republican because I am not a one issue cause. I am a human being who believes in a government that helps to insure equal treatment under its laws and respects my individuality as was the case in California under a Republican Governor named Ronald Reagan
3.-At the time, a California legislator proposed a law that would ban the state from hiring teachers who were gay. Then Governor, Ronald Reagan, struck down the bill claiming it set dangerous precedent that threatened individual rights.
4.-I am a Republican because I believe in a proper defense of my nation that at times requires preemptive actions that can prevent the worst from coming to fruition.
5.-I am a Republican because I am more than just a gay man. I am an American and I do not believe that government is the answer to everything. I do not believe that taking large sums of money away from me and my neighbors helps me keep my head above the rising tide of government inefficiency and waste.
6.-I am a Republican because I believe in the American people more than I do in any government.
7.-I am a Republican because the true principles of my party allow me to be who I want and think as I want without a government that foists its own opinion on me.
8.-The gay struggle for the freedom to live our lives the way we choose in order to pursue happiness is the keystone to conservative thought. It is the same struggle that founded this country. The same struggle that was fought to achieve religious freedom and independence and it is that struggle which helps makes my being gay and Republican a natural partnership.
Republicans have traditionally fought for less government and less control. They have also fought for equality.
From the civil war and the days of Lincoln to the passage of civil rights legislation which only saw the light of day because of Republicans support, the party of Lincoln remains a good fit for me.
The plight for gay equality is not one that I avoid, but it is one I fight on two fronts. On the extreme religious right I fight fanatical attempts to make mortal interpretations of religious doctrines into unsuitable federal law that deny gays rights. On the extreme left I fight equally closed minded, peddlers of hatred who claim everyone who refuses to give gays special rights are
bigots.
---------------------------------------
------
Those are just direct mentions of my articulated point.
So putting aside your consistently wrong points, you have once again proven yourself to be a high maintenance, screwball with more opinion than sense and, as proven in the past, unworthy of time or consideration.
So have fun with yourself. The fight you wish to wage is raging endlessly in your own dysfunctional, twisted little mind.
I'm confused. The title is WHY HOMOSEXUALS CAN BE REPUBLICANS, but this is just another liberal bashing, isn't it? You used the word "liberal" TWENTY-TWO TIMES, and if you include the pronoun "they" whenever you used it in place of "liberal", the counts got to be over forty. You really didn't tell us WHY HOMOSEXUALS CAN BE REPUBLICANS, but you did tell us WHY KEMPITE IS OBSESSED WITH LIBERALS. Even professed liberal-bashers like Hawk don't say the word "liberal" TWENTY-TWO TIMES IN A SINGLE BLOG! Maybe this is a two-part blog, and you'll tell us all WHY HOMOSEXUALS CAN BE REPUBLICANS in the second part.
|
<< Home