Anti-gay lawmaker outed by man he flirted online
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:13:51 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Anti-gay lawmaker outed by man he flirted online
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Author Topic: Anti-gay lawmaker outed by man he flirted online  (Read 5478 times)
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 29, 2015, 08:22:11 AM »

I can't believe this is still happening after Anthony Weiner.
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 29, 2015, 10:01:03 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Happy to agree with you
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 29, 2015, 10:05:58 AM »

He really only has himself to blame for that and no one else. Plus, you shouldn't have double standards, especially as a legislator. If this was a story about a Democrat who voted for gun control that got outed as owning a gun, conservatives would have different tune to sing.
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 29, 2015, 10:08:32 AM »

As far as I'm aware though, the only thing he voted against was an ENDA-type bill.  Many gay people oppose this on libertarian grounds.  Opposing the bill does not mean, atleast for most people, that they want to discriminate against gays
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: April 29, 2015, 12:36:58 PM »

This is not any different that outing Anthony Weiner for being straight. If you are a politician, you should, probably, try to avoid sending pictures of your dick to others. Or be prepared to have that blow up in your face.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: April 29, 2015, 12:41:51 PM »

This is not any different that outing Anthony Weiner for being straight. If you are a politician, you should, probably, try to avoid sending pictures of your dick to others. Or be prepared to have that blow up in your face.

Pun intended, ag?
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: April 29, 2015, 12:43:17 PM »

I can't believe this is still happening after Anthony Weiner.

people will always want sex, politicians are people, and the internet can be a gateway to sexual titillation.  such 'scandals' will never go away.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: April 29, 2015, 01:00:31 PM »

This is not any different that outing Anthony Weiner for being straight. If you are a politician, you should, probably, try to avoid sending pictures of your dick to others. Or be prepared to have that blow up in your face.

The problem with Weiner I think was more that he was married, and apparently cheating on his wife.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: April 29, 2015, 04:29:37 PM »

What is "anti-gay" about this person?

because he is one of these people (upper right hand corner)...


That vote does not mean he is anti-gay. There's no rule that says if you belong to a group of people you have to support making discrimination against that group illegal.

My guess is he continues to vote the way he's been voting, and gets reelected.
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: April 29, 2015, 04:35:38 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly - you articulated what I was trying to say a little bit better. I oppose ENDA on the grounds that I believe it could lead to frivolous lawsuits.  One also has to remember that ideally, elected representatives serve at the behest of their constituents, not themselves.
Logged
SATW
SunriseAroundTheWorld
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,463
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: April 29, 2015, 05:10:35 PM »

Lol, there is so much trolling going on in here. Opposing ENDA makes one contradictory with the values of the LGBT Community, period.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: April 29, 2015, 05:28:59 PM »

This is not any different that outing Anthony Weiner for being straight. If you are a politician, you should, probably, try to avoid sending pictures of your dick to others. Or be prepared to have that blow up in your face.

Pun intended, ag?

Everybody is entitled to drawing their own meanings.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: April 29, 2015, 05:32:02 PM »

This is not any different that outing Anthony Weiner for being straight. If you are a politician, you should, probably, try to avoid sending pictures of your dick to others. Or be prepared to have that blow up in your face.

The problem with Weiner I think was more that he was married, and apparently cheating on his wife.

The problem with Weiner, of course, was who that wife was Smiley

But, in general, the problem is always that the person in question does not want information about that sort of behavior becoming public, for whatever reason. If the politician is not trying to conceal anything (for whatever reason), there is no problem.
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: April 29, 2015, 07:34:41 PM »

The following are federal anti-discrimination protected classes:
  •     Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
  •      Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
  •      Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
  •      National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
  •      Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
  •      Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
  •      Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
  •      Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
  •      Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
  •      Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
  •      Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
  •      Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

How is that adding sexual orientation to that list is going to result in an onslaught of frivolous lawsuits?

I'm sorry but voting against ENDA type laws means you are anti-gay rights, which means you are anti-gay. If you are really worried about lawsuits and want to be ideologically consistent, then you better be also advocating for overturning the  Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act and all the others.
Logged
SATW
SunriseAroundTheWorld
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,463
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: April 29, 2015, 07:58:53 PM »

Likely Voter, I agree 100%
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: April 29, 2015, 08:03:02 PM »

one of the ironies of this debate is how people justify discrimination of gays because of the claim that it is a 'choice'. When one looks at the list of protected classes one group stands out as being clearly a choice, and that is religion. Yet while your religion is a choice, the ones fighting against gay rights are also always wanting more protections for the religious. They even want the right of the religious to discriminate against gays enshrined into law (RFRAs)

Alas, I doubt they see the irony.
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: April 30, 2015, 01:14:21 AM »

Lol, there is so much trolling going on in here. Opposing ENDA makes one contradictory with the values of the LGBT Community, period.

I'm not a community, I'm an individual who thinks for himself.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: April 30, 2015, 02:47:31 AM »

one of the ironies of this debate is how people justify discrimination of gays because of the claim that it is a 'choice'. When one looks at the list of protected classes one group stands out as being clearly a choice, and that is religion. Yet while your religion is a choice, the ones fighting against gay rights are also always wanting more protections for the religious. They even want the right of the religious to discriminate against gays enshrined into law (RFRAs)

Alas, I doubt they see the irony.

There are religious based exceptions to the religion civil rights laws.
If you are going to compare religion and same-sex orientation, it doesn't help your argument if you don't take religious concerns seriously. 
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: April 30, 2015, 03:24:23 AM »

one of the ironies of this debate is how people justify discrimination of gays because of the claim that it is a 'choice'. When one looks at the list of protected classes one group stands out as being clearly a choice, and that is religion. Yet while your religion is a choice, the ones fighting against gay rights are also always wanting more protections for the religious. They even want the right of the religious to discriminate against gays enshrined into law (RFRAs)

Alas, I doubt they see the irony.

There are religious based exceptions to the religion civil rights laws.
If you are going to compare religion and same-sex orientation, it doesn't help your argument if you don't take religious concerns seriously. 

Gay people don't choose to be gay, but people who choose to be fundamentalists demand that their world view that the gays should be discriminated against be enshrined into the laws of a secular nation. I take that very seriously. It is seriously f--ked up.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: April 30, 2015, 05:40:19 AM »

Lol, there is so much trolling going on in here. Opposing ENDA makes one contradictory with the values of the LGBT Community, period.

I'm not a community, I'm an individual who thinks for himself.

Yeah, and with a self-loathing attitude like yours, no wonder.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: April 30, 2015, 11:11:29 AM »


Because integrity is a reasonable assumption from any elected official, outing someone who makes flagrant anti-gay statements who proves to be an active homosexual is fair game.

Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: April 30, 2015, 05:38:57 PM »

one of the ironies of this debate is how people justify discrimination of gays because of the claim that it is a 'choice'. When one looks at the list of protected classes one group stands out as being clearly a choice, and that is religion. Yet while your religion is a choice, the ones fighting against gay rights are also always wanting more protections for the religious. They even want the right of the religious to discriminate against gays enshrined into law (RFRAs)

Alas, I doubt they see the irony.

There are religious based exceptions to the religion civil rights laws.
If you are going to compare religion and same-sex orientation, it doesn't help your argument if you don't take religious concerns seriously. 

Gay people don't choose to be gay, but people who choose to be fundamentalists demand that their world view that the gays should be discriminated against be enshrined into the laws of a secular nation. I take that very seriously. It is seriously f--ked up.

People - gay, straight, whatever - choose to have sexual relations and/or get married.  That is the issue that is causing the legal controversy, not someone's psychological sexual orientation.
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: April 30, 2015, 05:55:46 PM »

one of the ironies of this debate is how people justify discrimination of gays because of the claim that it is a 'choice'. When one looks at the list of protected classes one group stands out as being clearly a choice, and that is religion. Yet while your religion is a choice, the ones fighting against gay rights are also always wanting more protections for the religious. They even want the right of the religious to discriminate against gays enshrined into law (RFRAs)

Alas, I doubt they see the irony.

There are religious based exceptions to the religion civil rights laws.
If you are going to compare religion and same-sex orientation, it doesn't help your argument if you don't take religious concerns seriously.  

Gay people don't choose to be gay, but people who choose to be fundamentalists demand that their world view that the gays should be discriminated against be enshrined into the laws of a secular nation. I take that very seriously. It is seriously f--ked up.

People - gay, straight, whatever - choose to have sexual relations and/or get married.  That is the issue that is causing the legal controversy, not someone's psychological sexual orientation.

Firstly being gay isn't some 'psychological' condition. More to the point, why deny gay people the choice to marry because you chose to believe in a particular religious philosophy? Why do the choices of the religious have any bearing whatsoever on the civil laws of a state.

It makes as much sense as members of the Rotary Club ensuring that members of Elks Lodges cant get fishing licenses because they believe that Elks shouldn't be able to fish.

Your religion has no place in law. Of course that is why when it comes to actual court cases they have cooked up absurd notions like how denying gays the right to be married is because of 'tradition' or even more absurdly, because of 'responsible procreation.' Let's face it, the religious have decided gays are icky and they want to f--k with them in any way that they can and they have used the levers of government to do so but those days are ending and now they are having a hissy fit. In a generation we will find those of such beliefs as antiquated as those who oppose inter-racial marriage or fluoridation of water.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: April 30, 2015, 06:10:30 PM »

one of the ironies of this debate is how people justify discrimination of gays because of the claim that it is a 'choice'. When one looks at the list of protected classes one group stands out as being clearly a choice, and that is religion. Yet while your religion is a choice, the ones fighting against gay rights are also always wanting more protections for the religious. They even want the right of the religious to discriminate against gays enshrined into law (RFRAs)

Alas, I doubt they see the irony.

There are religious based exceptions to the religion civil rights laws.
If you are going to compare religion and same-sex orientation, it doesn't help your argument if you don't take religious concerns seriously.  

Gay people don't choose to be gay, but people who choose to be fundamentalists demand that their world view that the gays should be discriminated against be enshrined into the laws of a secular nation. I take that very seriously. It is seriously f--ked up.

People - gay, straight, whatever - choose to have sexual relations and/or get married.  That is the issue that is causing the legal controversy, not someone's psychological sexual orientation.

Firstly being gay isn't some 'psychological' condition. More to the point, why deny gay people the choice to marry because you chose to believe in a particular religious philosophy? Why do the choices of the religious have any bearing whatsoever on the civil laws of a state.

It makes as much sense as members of the Rotary Club ensuring that members of Elks Lodges cant get fishing licenses because they believe that Elks shouldn't be able to fish.

Your religion has no place in law. Of course that is why when it comes to actual court cases they have cooked up absurd notions like how denying gays the right to be married is because of 'tradition' or even more absurdly, because of 'responsible procreation.' Let's face it, the religious have decided gays are icky and they want to f--k with them in any way that they can and they have used the levers of government to do so but those days are ending and now they are having a hissy fit. In a generation we will find those of such beliefs as antiquated as those who oppose inter-racial marriage or fluoridation of water.

If being attracted to someone of the same sex is not a psychological condition, what is it? A physical condition?  A metaphyscial condition?   Surely you must admit that being attracted to someone and having sex with them are in some way distinct? 
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: April 30, 2015, 06:33:08 PM »

one of the ironies of this debate is how people justify discrimination of gays because of the claim that it is a 'choice'. When one looks at the list of protected classes one group stands out as being clearly a choice, and that is religion. Yet while your religion is a choice, the ones fighting against gay rights are also always wanting more protections for the religious. They even want the right of the religious to discriminate against gays enshrined into law (RFRAs)

Alas, I doubt they see the irony.

There are religious based exceptions to the religion civil rights laws.
If you are going to compare religion and same-sex orientation, it doesn't help your argument if you don't take religious concerns seriously.  

Gay people don't choose to be gay, but people who choose to be fundamentalists demand that their world view that the gays should be discriminated against be enshrined into the laws of a secular nation. I take that very seriously. It is seriously f--ked up.

People - gay, straight, whatever - choose to have sexual relations and/or get married.  That is the issue that is causing the legal controversy, not someone's psychological sexual orientation.

Firstly being gay isn't some 'psychological' condition. More to the point, why deny gay people the choice to marry because you chose to believe in a particular religious philosophy? Why do the choices of the religious have any bearing whatsoever on the civil laws of a state.

It makes as much sense as members of the Rotary Club ensuring that members of Elks Lodges cant get fishing licenses because they believe that Elks shouldn't be able to fish.

Your religion has no place in law. Of course that is why when it comes to actual court cases they have cooked up absurd notions like how denying gays the right to be married is because of 'tradition' or even more absurdly, because of 'responsible procreation.' Let's face it, the religious have decided gays are icky and they want to f--k with them in any way that they can and they have used the levers of government to do so but those days are ending and now they are having a hissy fit. In a generation we will find those of such beliefs as antiquated as those who oppose inter-racial marriage or fluoridation of water.

If being attracted to someone of the same sex is not a psychological condition, what is it? A physical condition?  A metaphyscial condition?   Surely you must admit that being attracted to someone and having sex with them are in some way distinct? 

not really sure what is the point you are trying to make. All the health and psychological associations consider homosexuality to be a healthy aspect of sexual orientation and not a disorder.

My point which you seem to be avoiding is that religion is a choice and sexual orientation is not. And further, it is the religious (like yourself) which seem to want to deny gays the non-discrimination rights bestowed on other protected classes, including religion (hence the irony, again).
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 12 queries.