Reply to Thread

Originally Posted by 058

This is where I will take issue with you... It is the Dems that try to define Republicans as the "guardians of the morals" so they, the Dems, will have fuel for their fires when a Republican gets "caught" with his hand in the cookie jar. Notice the only ones pointing fingers and bleating "NEENER NEENER" is the Dems and they are the last ones that should be pointing their boney, crooked fingers at anyone. I, as a Conservative do not care one wit what one does, gay or straight, behind close doors and I am sure that the vast majority of Conservatives do not care either. The only issue I have with gays and their lifestyle is their overwhelming desire to flaunt their sexuality and new found freedom in public, and they do. If you don't believe me come to San Francisco for the Folsom St parade or you could save yourself the trip and see some of the debauchery that is published online. Personally I don't care what they do at this public display of vulgarity as I do not partake in any of these activities but I do support their and anyone elses right to do so. As for the Folsom St Parade I do feel sorry for those who think they are going to see a nice benign family fare parade such as tourists and the niave. Shocked, stunned and not amazed is usually the most common reaction. They generally do not return to S.F. and that is a pity.

The dems are worse than the republicans -
Im not defending them at all and youll find me accused of being on the right all the time.

The issues I stated are where the republicans make their moral stands, and start the double speak.

Like Sarah Palin replying to the direct question of support of a womens right to an abortion in the case of rape - her answer was an avoidance move - "counseling."

Every time someone mentions gay rights- someone bring up the "gay parades" - I get it. We straights dont dress up and shout VAGINA running up and down the street.

Gays dont have a monopoly on disgusting behavior- just better publicity.

UD

Originally Posted by Uncle Dave

Politicians and sex scandals are as old as politicians and sex.

Im a fiscally conservative and socially liberal (called a libertarian) but for the sake of this forum - most here say I'm on the right which is where I lean mostly.

The biggest issue facing the Republicans from converting young adults seems to be gay rights issues and the anti abortion stance. In short the republican parties inability to stay out of our bedrooms and attempt to dictate morals is costing the party dearly. Throw in a rash of hypocrisy and its highly damaging.
Gay teachers..... we've all had them and guess what... we likely didn't know they were gay.

Gay marriage- as long as they follow the same rules as a straight couple I don't see why they shouldnt be "allowed" to be just as miserable as the rest of us.

Gay people have always been with us, and always will be.

Remember when the national enquirer outed Rock Hudson as gay?

Before that he was a hero, a model to look up to, what every guy wanted to be. after that he was shunned and ostracized. Funny thing was - it was the same guy.

I separate the sexual preference from the person.

It's not my thing- Im a "skin boat to tuna town" guy and always will be.
Im not going to f them so I don't really care, and I'm not worried about anyone in my family or me- "catching" gay.

I know a bunch of you guys dont see eye to eye with me here, but thats how I feel.


Uncle Dave

This is where I will take issue with you... It is the Dems that try to define Republicans as the "guardians of the morals" so they, the Dems, will have fuel for their fires when a Republican gets "caught" with his hand in the cookie jar. Notice the only ones pointing fingers and bleating "NEENER NEENER" is the Dems and they are the last ones that should be pointing their boney, crooked fingers at anyone. I, as a Conservative do not care one wit what one does, gay or straight, behind close doors and I am sure that the vast majority of Conservatives do not care either. The only issue I have with gays and their lifestyle is their overwhelming desire to flaunt their sexuality and new found freedom in public, and they do. If you don't believe me come to San Francisco for the Folsom St parade or you could save yourself the trip and see some of the debauchery that is published online. Personally I don't care what they do at this public display of vulgarity as I do not partake in any of these activities but I do support their and anyone elses right to do so. As for the Folsom St Parade I do feel sorry for those who think they are going to see a nice benign family fare parade such as tourists and the niave. Shocked, stunned and not amazed is usually the most common reaction. They generally do not return to S.F. and that is a pity.

Politicians and sex scandals are as old as politicians and sex.

Im a fiscally conservative and socially liberal (called a libertarian) but for the sake of this forum - most here say I'm on the right which is where I lean mostly.

The biggest issue facing the Republicans from converting young adults seems to be gay rights issues and the anti abortion stance. In short the republican parties inability to stay out of our bedrooms and attempt to dictate morals is costing the party dearly. Throw in a rash of hypocrisy and its highly damaging.

Gay teachers..... we've all had them and guess what... we likely didn't know they were gay.

Gay marriage- as long as they follow the same rules as a straight couple I don't see why they shouldnt be "allowed" to be just as miserable as the rest of us.

Gay people have always been with us, and always will be.

Remember when the national enquirer outed Rock Hudson as gay?

Before that he was a hero, a model to look up to, what every guy wanted to be. after that he was shunned and ostracized. Funny thing was - it was the same guy.

I separate the sexual preference from the person.

It's not my thing- Im a "skin boat to tuna town" guy and always will be.
Im not going to f them so I don't really care, and I'm not worried about anyone in my family or me- "catching" gay.

I know a bunch of you guys dont see eye to eye with me here, but thats how I feel.


Uncle Dave

Originally Posted by SBjet

Good try, but they enjoy it enough it's pointless to intervene.

. . . and yet, here you are again.

Originally Posted by Gravyboat

"Can't legislate morality".
Because global warming, gay "rights", worker "rights", smoking, the war on obesity and junk food and all the rest of it aren't about morality. Please. The left is just as much about legislating morality as the right. It just may not be what you or I consider moral. And don't say it can't legislated. It can and has been done from the beginning.

Is it not immoral to murder, rape, pillage, steal, libel or generally engage in criminal activity? I don't believe I know of anyone who doesn't think it's immoral to do any of these things. Thus we have laws against them. Morals are about what we think is right or wrong. The "Law" as we know it, generally speaking, is what the People have decided is or isn't moral. Laws are a reflection of the morality of the commonwealth. Don't think so? What about Prop 8? Proponents clearly say it's an issue of morality. Alright. Opponents also say it's an issue of morality.
So, yes. Morality can be legislated.

Great points. The only point I would make is that the left is not just as much about legislating morality as the right, it is actually much more so...It seems like abortion is pretty much the only thing they do not want to restrict with increased regulation....I'm starting to think that the only reason some of the folks on the left support gay marriage, is because it gives them another excuse to make another group of folks go to the state for licences.

Originally Posted by BigQ

I see, well you got him good I guess, carry on then.

Good try, but they enjoy it enough it's pointless to intervene.

Originally Posted by The Doctor

Your question is absurd as we teach correct principals so our children will govern themselves well in life. When you meet any member of my family you will understand that principal immediately. You will also understand what a real honest tall person is.
I'll start answering your questions and appropriately responding to your posts when you answer the questions posed to you such as who are you? What is your honest intent here? What prompts such a person as you to openly lie, distort, insult, accuse and defame others from a hiding place unknown. Which of your stories are really true and when will they be verified? I'm guessing never!
Well over a hundred people on this board alone know me, my standards, my family, my boating interests, the location of my home, my sons, even my honest height , and I've never once ducked a question from a real person in any forum. When you become real, I'll treat you as real. Until then, you are a troll hiding behind a library keyboard, with no real identity because of the insults you deal out daily to anyone you disagree with. You have insulted me, my family, my values, my opinions, my contributions here, my chosen field of employment, and even insulted my hero father in law by insisting he never served his country as a marine in WWII. You sir, are not worthy of any answer until you crawl out from under your bridge, clean up and lay it all on the table then let the chips fall where they may as most of us here have done. Until that day you are a troll to be ignored.

Excellent post.

"Can't legislate morality".
Because global warming, gay "rights", worker "rights", smoking, the war on obesity and junk food and all the rest of it aren't about morality. Please. The left is just as much about legislating morality as the right. It just may not be what you or I consider moral. And don't say it can't legislated. It can and has been done from the beginning.

Is it not immoral to murder, rape, pillage, steal, libel or generally engage in criminal activity? I don't believe I know of anyone who doesn't think it's immoral to do any of these things. Thus we have laws against them. Morals are about what we think is right or wrong. The "Law" as we know it, generally speaking, is what the People have decided is or isn't moral. Laws are a reflection of the morality of the commonwealth. Don't think so? What about Prop 8? Proponents clearly say it's an issue of morality. Alright. Opponents also say it's an issue of morality.
So, yes. Morality can be legislated.

Originally Posted by The Doctor

Actually, he simply called me more names.

Where?

Originally Posted by The Doctor

His question was as sincere as his identity is real.

My question was sincere, you just don't want to answer it so you choose to attack me instead to divert attention away from the question. Typical Doc tapdance.

Actually, he simply called me more names, gave his own simple minded assessment of how I interact with my children/grandchildren (one of whom, I'm ready to head out on a bicycle ride with) and completely ducked the point of the discussion with his usual diatribe, rhetoric and drivel to divert the topic away from his nameless/faceless existence here on the board.
His question was as sincere as his identity is real. He's just a troll from under the bridge picking at the everyday folks that walk over his bridge in full view of all, on their way to their productive lives.

Originally Posted by ram78d10

Here's a hypothetical question: If one of your grandson's turned out to be gay, you would not support him finding someone and marrying them? Look at all the joys marriage has brought you; you would deny him the same joys you have experienced?

That question is a non sequitor. A person can love and support a gay son or grandson and want them to find happiness in "Civil Union" and still not support redefining the word "Marriage". It may not fit your notion of supporting gay rights, but it is possible. In fact it is a commonly held view in both political parties.

Originally Posted by ram78d10

Which is what I intended because I took Doc as being kind of a dickhead with the post he directed at me.

I see, well you got him good I guess, carry on then.

Originally Posted by BigQ

Man, sometimes you bring up some good points, but your kind of a dickhead with that post.

Which is what I intended because I took Doc as being kind of a dickhead with the post he directed at me.

Originally Posted by ram78d10

Scientific research suggests the principles you teach your children and grandchildren have nothing to do with them being or not being gay. Hopefully for their sake none of them are gay so they won't have to feel the shame and disgrace you undoubtedly would have contributed to them feeling towards themselves. Obviously my question was too painful for you to even consider thus your little diatribe towards me.

Man, sometimes you bring up some good points, but your kind of a dickhead with that post.