FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB General Discussion Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

View Poll Results: Can the GOP Senate elect even ONE non-Bigot as leader?!
Yes 12 30.00%
No 28 70.00%
Voters: 40. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-22-2003, 10:52 AM   #11
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Location
Posts: 398
Default

I have never been able to understand gay republicans. How can one be a member of a political party that seeks to deny basic rights: marriage, sex, equal opportunity to a percentage of the population when you also fall in that percentage?

It seems to me almost on the level of a non-white person wanting to join the KKK.
everlastingtongue is offline  
Old 04-22-2003, 11:06 AM   #12
atheist_in_foxhole
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Can the GOP Senate elect even ONE non-Bigot as leader?!


No. The base of the Republican party is made up of right-wing fundamentalist bigots and as a result it would be rather difficult for a non-bigot to get elected to the leadership.
 
Old 04-22-2003, 11:36 AM   #13
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Void
Posts: 396
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by ex-idaho
Didn't he create a big stink about school prayer in the last campaign cycle?
Not sure. Could you expand on that a bit?
Melkor is offline  
Old 04-22-2003, 12:03 PM   #14
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Absurdistan
Posts: 299
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by everlastingtongue
I have never been able to understand gay republicans. How can one be a member of a political party that seeks to deny basic rights: marriage, sex, equal opportunity to a percentage of the population when you also fall in that percentage?

It seems to me almost on the level of a non-white person wanting to join the KKK.
Hm.
Change from the inside maybe?
I know a guy who became a catholic priest. His reasoning is that as long as only men who agree unconditionnaly with the positions of the church on social and other issues (abortion, contraception, role of women, celibacy..), the church is unlikely to change. By joining it, he thinks he can trigger change from the inside by making the church more receptive to ideas from outside.

*shrugs*

He's an unconventional priest and quite a flirt. His motto in french is: "Pr�tre pas pr�tre, j'y vais". It's a word play that loses much of its punch once translated in english. Just know that in french, "Ready or not, here I go" and "Priest or not, here I go" sound a lot alike

Soyin
Soyin Milka is offline  
Old 04-22-2003, 09:01 PM   #15
Obsessed Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Not Mayaned
Posts: 96,752
Default

While there are a few moderate Republicans out there they don't have a snowball's of becoming a party leader. There's simply too many fundies.
Loren Pechtel is offline  
Old 04-23-2003, 09:30 PM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 2,846
Default

The "change from inside notion" is valid. Then there may be other issues that they feel stronger about are represented in the GOP. It could be that they remeber it as the party of Goldwater and not Falwell..
Majestyk is offline  
Old 04-23-2003, 10:35 PM   #17
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Freedonia
Posts: 133
Default

John Kyle and John McCain are our senators from Arizona. You know, now that I think about it, they are very rarely in the local news, unless they are having a medical procedure done, or they want to tout a popular law they voted for. Otherwise, they lay so low you wouldn't know we had senators. They keep getting re-elected by name recognition and the feel-good news they premit our local news to show.
Randi is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 04:29 AM   #18
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 270
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Majestyk
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,"

He's right, though. All of those should be outside of govermental authority.
Outside governmental authority? Incest? Just waiting to pork your mom?

Incest laws are there to protect children who cannot make informed decisions about sex and therefore cannot give consent. How can you defend incest?
smugg is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 05:42 AM   #19
Jat
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,311
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by smugg
Outside governmental authority? Incest? Just waiting to pork your mom?

Incest laws are there to protect children who cannot make informed decisions about sex and therefore cannot give consent. How can you defend incest?
The type of incest they were comparing it to was between consenting adults. It is still wrong, though, on genetic grounds.
Jat is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 08:00 AM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO
Posts: 3,515
Default

Quote:
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,"
You know, people used to make the same argument about the legitimacy of outlawing interracial relationships.

"The state has the right to prevent immorality, even in the bedroom. Give up the right to prevent interracial breeding, then anything becomes permissible."
Alonzo Fyfe is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:00 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.