Why Real Conservatives Should Look at Gays Differently

[Blind Sniper]

you can't have it both ways. Gays are in your face with the lifestyle and the recruitment. Most of them won't simply keep their relationships private and leave you alone as you wish they would
They feel like they have to change the culture and they are doing a good job of it

You're talking about the stereotypical "flaming faggot" type, right? They're a minority, one that's shunned by most other gays. Out of the dozen gay people I know, only -one- even comes close to fitting that stereotype, the rest keep it private, and quite a few actually hate FF types with a passion. Really, it's not too dissimilar from how some of y'all treat the "Fudd" type gun owners, or the goons like James Yeager.

 

[scap99]

You're talking about the stereotypical "flaming faggot" type, right? They're a minority, one that's shunned by most other gays. Out of the dozen gay people I know, only -one- even comes close to fitting that stereotype, the rest keep it private, and quite a few actually hate FF types with a passion. Really, it's not too dissimilar from how some of y'all treat the "Fudd" type gun owners, or the goons like James Yeager.

I don't think I've even met a dozen gay people...you need to move.

 

[itchin]

LOL. Show me where I can sign up to be gay (aside from the Navy recruitment office).

Zing!

 

[southtexaspilot]

LOL. Show me where I can sign up to be gay (aside from the Navy recruitment office).

That's only a requirement for submariners. Surface folks chase girls in skirts unless in Thailand, still in skirts though.

W

 

[vmax]

LOL. Show me where I can sign up to be gay (aside from the Navy recruitment office).

gays cannot reproduce through copulation. They must recruit the young into the lifestyle
If you are truly interested in the lifestyle, I'm sure you can find a bar somewhere and meet some folks to show you the ropes for the first time.

 

[London]

gays cannot reproduce through copulation. They must recruit the young into the lifestyle
If you are truly interested in the lifestyle, I'm sure you can find a bar somewhere and meet some folks to show you the ropes for the first time.

I'm sure none are naturally different. They MUST be convinced. Secretly convinced!

 

[Dash Riprock]

I don't give a good god damned what two (or more) consenting adults do to entertain themselves in private.

Just don't make it a public party and force me accept it.

But they are forcing you to accept it, by persuading the courts to grant marriage rights by decree. That is the government acting on behalf of society to declare gay relationships to be legitimate and equal to hetero relationships in all respects, despite the fact that the only rational reason for the government to sanction a marriage is for the protection and rearing of children which a gay relationship cannot produce.

We've had this discussion before and I'm not going to keep rehashing the same points. This, along with abortion and welfare entitlements and a host of other things that liberals hold dear including gun control is part of a concerted movement to minimize and undermine traditional values so that the government can more easily be installed as provider, protector, and definer of morality. We ignore it at our own peril.

 

[Blind Sniper]

I don't think I've even met a dozen gay people...you need to move.

I said "know", not "met". Three of the folks on that list don't even live on this continent. TL;DR, ya meet a lot of weird/interesting folks on the 'net.

Edit @ vmax's last post: Two gay dudes can't have kids - on their own. Neither can two lesbians. There -are- ways for it to happen, though. To say or imply that gay couples are 100% incapable of having biological children is so wrong that it's not even worth laughing at.

 

[Younggun]

Damn, it's a re-run.

 

[vmax]

I'm sure none are naturally different. They MUST be convinced. Secretly convinced!

again, if you are that interested in it, go check it out for yourself

I'm smart enough to know if sex is a pain in the ass, something is bad wrong.

if a dude wants to get into the anus of another dude and call that good, well, thats on him, I guess.
Most people already know thats messed up without having to be told

I fall into the Phil Robertson camp on homos and I darn sure wouldn't get on the internet and fight to defend that way of thinking.

 

[London]

But they are forcing you to accept it, by persuading the courts to grant marriage rights by decree.

That isn't force. Automatons don't need force. If you're so weak-minded that you accept something simply because it's legal then I don't know what to tell you.

This thread has been an amusing example of how some people can have the facts presented plainly, simply, and directly in front of their faces and still not wake up. Bottom line: If you want to control non-criminals through government you are a liberal. If you want to stigmatize victimless activities you don't like you are a liberal. If you use religion as a carte blanche to justify your behavior you are an irrational automaton.

And I'm the unwitting puppet of the socialists....

 

[London]

He told me not to be such a chicken. He told me just try it, I'd like it. He told me the first time is always free.

What he didn't tell me was after I did, I'd spend the rest of my life HOOKED ON GAY.

 

[diveRN]

I don't have a problem with gays or what they do in their own home. In fact, I'm all for giving them equal access to benefits and the things that traditional married folks have access to.

But why won't they call it something else? Marriage has long been regarded as the union of a man and a woman. The GLB movement could've had everything they wanted had they gone down that road, except the word "marriage," but that wasn't good enough for the militants. Ok, fine, I can even understand this. What I take issue with is their overall desire to force acceptance of gay sexuality on the rest of us and constantly do it using in-your-face methods. If I disagree with those methods then I'm a biggot, homophobe, or whatever other name they can think to call me. These are not tactics that engender support for a cause so fine, I won't support it.

When I'm walking down Polk Street with my 9yo son on a day trip to SF and he sees a gay man leading another naked male around by a leash attached to his prick... how am I supposed to explain that to him? Why should I even have to? To me, this embodies the gay movement because their sexuality defines them. Working as a nurse, I see a lot of gay men in the profession. Trust me, the vast majority of them make no bones (bad pun?) about letting me and everyone else know that they're gay either by actions or words. Say what you will about folks like this being in the minority, take a trip to the Castro District or the Tenderloin sometime and you may reconsider your position.

Arthur sounds like a typical Libertarian and his piece only just touches on one inescapable fact: The vast majority of social conservatives in this country are Christians and Christians just aren't that willing to openly accept homosexuality as mainstream because it flies in the face of their fundamental spiritual beliefs and the laws of nature. Not only that, when Christians want to exercise their spiritual beliefs as enumerated by the Constitution, they're legally told that they can't. Their beliefs are marginalized in favor of something they see as fundamentally wrong, yet the author wants Christians to accept gays with open arms? He's living a pipe dream.

Sorry, just not buying it. If the gay community wants my support and those of other social conservatives, which I said in my first sentence that I was willing to give, they need to rethink their tactics and methods and figure out another way to fit into society. Until then, I will continue to support and defend the traditional values and morés that this country was founded on.

I apologize for the pissed off tone of my piece. I'm just tired of hearing libertarians constantly tell me that I need to accept their beliefs because it's "constitutional." BS.

 

[Odiferous]

I'm pretty much a Live and Let Live kind of guy.

But what I don't like is that "We want marriage equality" turned into "We want a dude who thinks he's a chick to be able to whip his crank out in the same bathroom that your daughter uses."

 

[shortround]

you can't have it both ways. Gays are in your face with the lifestyle and the recruitment. Most of them won't simply keep their relationships private and leave you alone as you wish they would
They feel like they have to change the culture and they are doing a good job of it

Have it both ways? Nothing of the sort.

I fear your have been indoctrinated into the emerging culture of narcissism.

 

[rushthezeppelin]

If only government had never gotten into the business of marriage in the first place. /sigh

 

[Saltyag2010]

I'm pretty much a Live and Let Live kind of guy.

But what I don't like is that "We want marriage equality" turned into "We want a dude who thinks he's a chick to be able to whip his crank out in the same bathroom that your daughter uses."

While I think that everyone who is not a criminal should have equal rights, this story is disturbing and that male has broken the law if your story is true. Male body parts should never be in a women's bathroom while the bathroom is occupied by females. Same goes for the opposite.

The conversation of gay male athletes in showers of professional and college teams came up on sports radio 1200. The caller asked "if a gay man can shower with guys, I want the right to shower with women." The host replied "no your argument is flawed. Men and women have different genitals." Another good case study of homosexuals in the showers of sports teams is gay women in women's sports. It's prevalent and there are 0 stories reported of teammates hooking up or even sexually advancing on their teammates in the showers. That's when I realized where the line is clearly drawn separating rights from overstepping boundaries and breaking laws. No dicks where there are vaginas. It's as easy as that.

DiveRN - the gay SF experience with your kid is horrendous. Freedom is one thing. Lewd behavior is not tolerated by the laws in normal places but it seems that SF was too left leaning to protect you and your child from gay lewdness and possible male nudity in public. I guess Cali is too worried about important stuff like bullet buttons, muzzle breaks, collapsible stocks, 'banana clips', air quality, v8s, and being smug towards conservatives.

 

[stdreb27]

Why Real Conservatives Should Look at Gays Differently | The Hall of Manly Excellence

Please DO NOT post unless you've read the article.

The article is dumb but skirts around fails to address the real issues I have with gay anything.
1. I am straight and unable to marry a dude either. That is equal protection under the law.
2. Any group that seeks validation from the government I'm instantly and fundamentally opposed to.

Things I like.
1. Points out that homosexual issues have no place in politics.

 

[Saltyag2010]

The article is dumb but skirts around fails to address the real issues I have with gay anything.
1. I am straight and unable to marry a dude either. That is equal protection under the law.
2. Any group that seeks validation from the government I'm instantly and fundamentally opposed to.

Things I like.
1. Points out that homosexual issues have no place in politics.

I agree that the article is dumb. I also think the sexual preference doesn't belong in politics.

If same sex marriage stays legal in Texas you can marry a dude. So have fun in church. Its not validation, the gays want equal rights.

What the article should've said was "gays could vote more often for republicans if they said they would support gay marriage and alienate their social conservative base." This wouldn't really help the party tho because as the article says gays are 3-5% and it's been that way. 3-5% is nothing compared to the voter turnout of social conservatives who still would probably vote more republican because of the democrats pro-choice and anti gun agenda.

 

[stdreb27]

I agree that the article is dumb. I also think the sexual preference doesn't belong in politics.

If same sex marriage stays legal in Texas you can marry a dude. So have fun in church. Its not validation, the gays want equal rights.

What the article should've said was "gays could vote more often for republicans if they said they would support gay marriage and alienate their social conservative base." This wouldn't really help the party tho because as the article says gays are 3-5% and it's been that way. 3-5% is nothing compared to the voter turnout of social conservatives who still would probably vote more republican because of the democrats pro-choice and anti gun agenda.

It's validation, if you want to see what some other groups do, who don't subscribe to normal definitions marriage, who aren't looking for government validation, look at the polygamists.