Again, I have no patience or tolerance for Gay Republicans.

The GOP slaps around gays and lesbians at any and every opportunity, yet there are many gay and lesbians who are unapologetic about their support for the sinking GOP agenda.

I'm baffled. Can any Republican from this board explain why they would vote for the GOP this election?

Link?

Try this. For those of us who have highly skeptical of Mrs. Palin since she was put on the ticket, and whose church recently was going to have some kind of pray away from being gay seminars, this should come as no surprise. She makes McBush look liberal.

This is just more of the same from the GOP, so I doubt the reaction of the Log Cabin Republicans has changed one iota just because Caribou Barbie spelled it out. They varnish over this as a "single issue" obsession denying that it has a chilling consequence for their fellow gays and lesbians on so many levels. They'll talk about higher taxes while ignoring joint tax returns, social security benefits, inheritance laws etc. to make their case to sleep with the enemy. "Working Within (my f**king ass)" should be their bumper sticker because that's what it's getting them....screwed (along with the rest of us).

edited for insensitivity.

Really? And what would that accomplish? Your comment, Santana, comes off as just a bit racist. I think a bullet between the eyes would make her much more attractive...and productive! Kidding....not bullets for her. She's actually not worth it. Worry not, she will be barely a footnote in about two weeks.

just wanted to emphasize the size of the male anatomy. of course it's just a myth. it's also my favorite porn scene: a blonde bitch getting railed by black men. hot.

I think someone needs to coin the term "republican marriage". I.e. as being between one man, one woman, and a boyfriend/male prostitute on the side.

Clearly there strong values are working well for them.

It was brought up before that Obama and Biden are also against gay marriage. And the Republicans of the board said "See, they're no different from your guys, they also don't want it"

This is the difference right here. Obama and Biden may not support it but they or any other Democrat with common sense and dignity, WHICH NO REPUBLICAN POLITICIAN HAS, would never try to write discrimination into the Constitution.

Biden appeared on Ellen's show yesterday and they talked about gay marriage. He said both he and Barack would never try to change the constitution to exclude gays and lesbians from marrying. Ellen seemed to genuinely like him.

Later in the show, Biden threw a baseball and dunked Julia Louis-Dreyfuss in a dunk tank. It was funny.

Well, given that gay republicans have been voting for someone who favored outlawing gay sex, why on earth would they be fazed by voting for someone outlawing gay marriage? As gov. of Texas, Bush said he would veto a motion to repeal Texas sodomy law, and he was also "disappointed" by the supreme court decision that overturned sodomy laws.

Actually, I recall having a discussion about this with a gay republican once and their response was that gay marriage didn't matter to them because they didn't want to get married. I found that response very revealing.

Outsports is accepting advertising from Yes on 8 (the anti-gay marriage amendment in California). Ridiculous.

Supposedly they don't have control over the ads that appear

(uh-huh...)

I just read Cyd's article about voting no on 8; at the end of the article, at the bottom of the page, is a link for the Yes on 8 web site.

OF COURSE Obama and Biden wouldn't push to change the laws to prevent gay marriage. Does anyone think Obama or Biden has thought one second about issuing a statement condemning or stating disagreement with the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision? No. They don't have a problem with gay marriage. They say what they do because they want to be elected, just as Hillary did, just as many liberal Democrats do. I wish they were more outspoken, but much of the national electorate is still more socially conservative than leading Democratic leaders adn politicians.

At the risk of sounding politically correct, though really, in this case, I don't give a damn, the comment about the black men raping Palin is extremely offensive. Extremely. Advocating rape of any woman is offensive. Racializing it is even more offensive. For several hundred years thousands of black men, in this country and elsewhere, were brutally tortured, physically maimed, and killed because of often spurious claims about approaching, looking at, talking to, and having sexual desires for or mutually consensual relations with, let alone raping white women. In the US, a woman is raped every six minutes. So if you get off on watching porn that features that scenario, that's your business. As repellant as Palin is, no one should be calling for her or any woman or any man to be raped, and no one should be racializing it and promoting disgusting, hateful stereotypes about black or any other people.

Ads like that often appear based on the text on the page. Keywords on the page are spotted, and ads are randomly generated based on that. If you look in the Movies/TV threads you often see ads related to TV shows. If one of those ads are appearing on the page, let Jim and Cyd know.

Now I don't like Sister Sarah either (wouldn't piss in her mouth if her teeth were on fire)...but err umm...this along with the comment about thats not the only retarded thing that comes out of her vagina are really stooping to some low levels. I can't remember who posted the "retarded" one with the pictures, but both of those are just wrong. Sometimes what may be said in a joking manner comes off well, but this is just uncomfortable because it conjures up a lot of stereotypical things. Now Santana I know you didn't mean it literally but surely you can see how that statement would make others feel really uncomfortable, or in the case of fantomas, extremely offended. It didn't offend me but it did leave me feeling uncomfortable



Damn why she got to be a blonde bitch? But that is actually something I may have to follow up with you about in PM because you are not the only one who finds that as their favorite scene in pornos. Have you ever explored the racial meaning as to why that is your favorite scene in pornos. Thats the psych student in me coming out sorry. Whats interesting about that statement though is part of a discussion that wasn't talked enough about in the OJ Simpson trial. Black men with not only white women, but blonde white women and the historical stereotypes that played into many people's feelings about that trial. I'm tellin you...there's a lot goin on in that subconscious of yours that you probably aren't even aware of.

"At the risk of sounding politically correct, though really, in this case, I don't give a damn, the comment about the black men raping Palin is extremely offensive. Extremely. Advocating rape of any woman is offensive. Racializing it is even more offensive. For several hundred years thousands of black men, in this country and elsewhere, were brutally tortured, physically maimed, and killed because of often spurious claims about approaching, looking at, talking to, and having sexual desires for or mutually consensual relations with, let alone raping white women. In the US, a woman is raped every six minutes. So if you get off on watching porn that features that scenario, that's your business. As repellant as Palin is, no one should be calling for her or any woman or any man to be raped, and no one should be racializing it and promoting disgusting, hateful stereotypes about black or any other people."



Well said, Fantomas. Thank you.

The real question is would Palin be forced to pay for her own rape kit? I'm guessing yes since she pushed that legislation.

I like the way Obama and his surrogates turned the tables on Palin today. They hit her "real Americans are in small towns with real American values where goodness and honor prevail," comments very hard. By implying that "true" Americans only live in small-town America, Palin was slamming and dishonoring all those Americans who gave their lives on 9/11, the Democrats are now saying. All those true, patriotic Americans who died on the planes, died working at the Pentagon and died while going about their jobs in NYC's World Trade Center that day were just called "un-American" by Palin. How dare she dishonor all those American patriots whose lives were cut short on 9/11.

Ah yes, taking a page out of the Republican playbook. I like it. Politics is a dirty business.

i can understand if the post seems offensive to some, but it was really meant to be tongue-in-cheek. i swear, i wasn't advocating rape. i wasn't stereotyping black men (damn porno). i have no issues with the brothers. i have many black friends. and i had a black boyfriend.

i really don't wanna explain myself but fantomas is one of my favorite posters here ever and i value his opinion.

Typical example of the double standards that stink up this country. Sandra Bernhard, a comedienne, made the remark about her "black brothas" gang raping Palin. She gets a free ride because she is female, leftist and Jewish. If this were someone of my persuasion (care to take a guess), there's a very good chance that I wouldn't be able to go through life unscathed by the public. It is also no surprise that the black agitators like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the feminazis didn't openly scream bloody murder about it. You can only be a p.c.-approved person to make bold statements like Bernhard does in this day and age.

We may be on the verge of a transformation in gay rights unlike anything since Stonewall, and we're squabbling with each other.

The fundamenatists are the ones who should be experiencing internal circumspection and the signs are that that is exactly what is happening.

An ideological cease-fire, if not a reconciliation, may be possible between the left and right under an Obama administration. And a cessation of hostilities is, as any good diplomat knows, an opportunity to build a true and lasting peace, and prosperity considering the current economic crisis.

Both sides can agree to promote their agendas peacefully, using the law as a weapon of defence rather than offense. Separation of church and state was the distinct American way to preserve freedom of belief.

The original thirteen states came to an agreement to disagree on many matters, and their differences were as much religious as economical.

If we can agree to express our beliefs peacefully, we can live peacefully. I think most of us gays have been willing to do that for as long as there has been a gay rights movement. Now let's pray the "religious" join us.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm

(from the above)
Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)
Disentangle gay rights from the word "marriage". (Aug 2007)
Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage. (Jul 2007)


While many of his stances are gay-friendly, and a step in the right direction (like it could get any worse?), he opposes gay marriage like so many others do.

And so many people here either just blindly accept it or lie about it, or brush it off as "oh, that's OK, I don't need the word 'marriage'." But when a republican comes in and says "marriage is between a man and a woman" and wants to change the constitution for the definition of a "marriage" then all of a sudden the word marriage is the biggest deal on the planet.

Is it wrong to wish for a democrat (or republican, or ANYONE) who will actually come right out and support gay marriage? Yes, I get it, opposing it and trying to ban it via the constitution are two very different things. Forgive me if neither of them gives a warm fuzzy feeling about a candidate. It's amazing (sad, really) how democrats are completely let off the hook when it comes to gay marriage.

I think that view is a bit cynical and short-sighted Tennis Guy. The difference between banning marriage outright and leaving it up to the states is the same as the difference between a short-term warm and fuzzy feeling and long-term euphoria.

Fundamentals do matter. The Supreme court does matter. A step in the right direction is three better than two in the opposite direction.

Sarah state thinks the states should decide when its about abortion but the feds should decide when it comes to same sex marriage. Consistent???

I thought in the US that it actually was the 50 states that regulate marriage laws? Of course I also thought that there was some sort of long standing agreement between the states that they would recognize marriages performed on other states but it seems that when it comes to same sex marriages that went out the window.

The typical apologist. He wants the states and denominations to deal with it (although that's where a lot of it belongs, yet conveniently lets him out easy without having to take any brave stances), and has stated he actually opposes it. He can claim to be as gay friendly as he wants and people here can claim it's all a "step in the right direction" but the end result is the same...after all this political pandering, the guy opposes gays like us getting married. No short-term-long-term about it.

The end result is not the same. A Federal ban to outlaw gay marriage (Palin's stance) would be the end. Finished. Over. Done. Obama is not for that and his way leaves the door open rather than slamming it shut. Not to mention the fact that Obama won't stack the Supreme Court with unfriendly, ultra conservative judges, but you can bet McCain-Palin will, you betcha! The end result is nowhere near the same....not even close.

Ellen Degeneres is Married. And I don't care.

Tennis Guy I will not cut off my nose to spite my face if that's what you mean.

There are life and death issues on which I would disagree with Barack Obama:

1 - I oppose the death penalty. He supports it even for crimes that do not result in the victim's death.

2 - I oppose pre-emptive war. He would not exclude any military option to protect the country.

I could probably come up with others though I don't think I need to.

However disagreements I have with John McCain and Sarah Palin go far, far beyond the above two. And they are far too important to ignore by not voting or, much worse, voting for them because of some promise one or the other has made, in contradiction to their past votes, for political gain. I won't list them all.