Anti-gay lawmaker outed by man he flirted online

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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).

Psychological and psychologically unhealthy are two different things.
My point was that having sex and getting married is a choice, unlike attractedness.  Saying sexual orientation is not a choice is misleading if it is being used as a way to make people go along with the choices people make to express their sexuality.  If you want to an organization should not fire someone because they are attracted to the same sex, I could agree with that. But if an organization has a code of conduct based in their beliefs that they do not support any open sexual activity outside of man-woman marriage, then that is different.
If someone has a religious objection to doing something I want them to do because I am not of their religion, then I do not believe I should be able to punish them.  So, there is no contradiction.

[Likely Voter]

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).

Psychological and psychologically unhealthy are two different things.
My point was that having sex and getting married is a choice, unlike attractedness.  Saying sexual orientation is not a choice is misleading if it is being used as a way to make people go along with the choices people make to express their sexuality.  If you want to an organization should not fire someone because they are attracted to the same sex, I could agree with that. But if an organization has a code of conduct based in their beliefs that they do not support any open sexual activity outside of man-woman marriage, then that is different.
If someone has a religious objection to doing something I want them to do because I am not of their religion, then I do not believe I should be able to punish them.  So, there is no contradiction.

That was so twisted I am not even sure what you are talking about. So you are saying that a private business owned by a religious person shouldn't be able to fire someone for being gay as long as that person never has gay sex? (in the privacy of their own home)

Beyond the convoluted logic, how the f--k are you going to actually implement such a policy?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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).

Psychological and psychologically unhealthy are two different things.
My point was that having sex and getting married is a choice, unlike attractedness.  Saying sexual orientation is not a choice is misleading if it is being used as a way to make people go along with the choices people make to express their sexuality.  If you want to an organization should not fire someone because they are attracted to the same sex, I could agree with that. But if an organization has a code of conduct based in their beliefs that they do not support any open sexual activity outside of man-woman marriage, then that is different.
If someone has a religious objection to doing something I want them to do because I am not of their religion, then I do not believe I should be able to punish them.  So, there is no contradiction.

That was so twisted I am not even sure what you are talking about. So you are saying that a private business owned by a religious person shouldn't be able to fire someone for being gay as long as that person never has gay sex? (in the privacy of their own home)

Beyond the convoluted logic, how the f--k are you going to actually implement such a policy?

You must not be very familiar with religious organizations. People are fired for engaging in prohibited forms of sexual activity all the time.  You might not like it but surely the how is not in question.

[Likely Voter]

Glad to see that you (unlike the hypocrite that this thread is about) endorse ENDA laws then. Since they have nothing to do with religious institutions.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While shua would have been better served had he he used different terminology, I don't think he was using "psychological" in the sense of "psychological problem," LV.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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.

Indeed, if there's anyone's psychological health I worry about.

[MaxQue]

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).

Psychological and psychologically unhealthy are two different things.
My point was that having sex and getting married is a choice, unlike attractedness.  Saying sexual orientation is not a choice is misleading if it is being used as a way to make people go along with the choices people make to express their sexuality.  If you want to an organization should not fire someone because they are attracted to the same sex, I could agree with that. But if an organization has a code of conduct based in their beliefs that they do not support any open sexual activity outside of man-woman marriage, then that is different.
If someone has a religious objection to doing something I want them to do because I am not of their religion, then I do not believe I should be able to punish them.  So, there is no contradiction.

That was so twisted I am not even sure what you are talking about. So you are saying that a private business owned by a religious person shouldn't be able to fire someone for being gay as long as that person never has gay sex? (in the privacy of their own home)

Beyond the convoluted logic, how the f--k are you going to actually implement such a policy?

You must not be very familiar with religious organizations. People are fired for engaging in prohibited forms of sexual activity all the time.  You might not like it but surely the how is not in question.

Civilised Western countries don,t allow that. If you wnt to be in Saudi Araria, you're free, shua, becaus we don't want your bulls**t here.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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).

Psychological and psychologically unhealthy are two different things.
My point was that having sex and getting married is a choice, unlike attractedness.  Saying sexual orientation is not a choice is misleading if it is being used as a way to make people go along with the choices people make to express their sexuality.  If you want to an organization should not fire someone because they are attracted to the same sex, I could agree with that. But if an organization has a code of conduct based in their beliefs that they do not support any open sexual activity outside of man-woman marriage, then that is different.
If someone has a religious objection to doing something I want them to do because I am not of their religion, then I do not believe I should be able to punish them.  So, there is no contradiction.

That was so twisted I am not even sure what you are talking about. So you are saying that a private business owned by a religious person shouldn't be able to fire someone for being gay as long as that person never has gay sex? (in the privacy of their own home)

Beyond the convoluted logic, how the f--k are you going to actually implement such a policy?

You must not be very familiar with religious organizations. People are fired for engaging in prohibited forms of sexual activity all the time.  You might not like it but surely the how is not in question.

Civilised Western countries don,t allow that. If you wnt to be in Saudi Araria, you're free, shua, becaus we don't want your bulls**t here.

I know, I wouldn't try; Quebec doesn't allow anything.  I prefer uncivilized countries where people are allowed to express their religion and communicate in whatever language they like. Saudi Arabia is however even more restrictive of Christianity than Quebec, if that is possible, so I'd have to be careful.

[Brittain33]

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? 

It's a sexual orientation.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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? 

It's a sexual orientation.

That is a label, not a description.

[CountryClassSF]

Who knows if it's a psychological condition or not?  If it was, the implication isn't that it's a "bad" thing to have or that the person who has it should be stigmatized in any way.  Why so much PC?

[LeBron]

I can't say I blame him. He probably has close friends and family members who he told previously he was gay, but the North Dakota Republican Party have made perfectly clear they're not willing to accept LGBTQA people in their state. I imagine had it not been for fear of being rejected by the party or its voters because of his sexual orientation, he would have been willing to come out to the public as well as vote for the bill ending discrimination against LGBTQA.

One other thing, whoever threatened this man into voting against his own rights should be thrown out of office, but that state is so backwards in terms of who has the political power that the wrong person will end up facing backlash.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This scandal has had some airtime here. Entirely because of the unfortunate name of the hypocrite in question.

[pbrower2a]

Outing people is NEVER acceptable.

If I go into my closet and find a scared little faygut...I will toss him out into the light.  I know you better than you know yourself because I came from where you're at.  Don't presume I'm wrong when you are the one who has to peer through a teensy peephole to see me.  

How many ways can I put this...I need my closet for cold storage of actual junk.

Bigots are often scared of something about themselves -- origins, lust, self-destructive behaviors... Were I to find an African ancestor in my genealogical research, I could live with that. I can imagine far worse. I do not seek out distant relatives in Germany; I can only imagine that I might find a connection to some Sturmbahnfuehrer who ordered Jews to their doom than someone like Paul Hindemith. Distant African-American relative? I have Barack Obama and I might have Quincy Jones through shared white ancestors. I have part-African descendants of Thomas Jefferson in my files because Thomas Jefferson is a relative.

Lusts? We must find ways to deal with them, do we not? Self-destructive behaviors? Likewise.

Homosexuality may not be the most favored of tendencies, but I can imagine far, far worse. To put it tamely, a gay son or lesbian daughter might take care of his aging parents in their time of greatest need and harshest demands. A straight son or daughter who dies of an overdose has no chance of doing that.

If anyone wants to bring God into the issue of homosexuality... then maybe God made one a homosexual!  Live with that!

(Edited because it quoted an edited post. - TF)

[Ban my account ffs!]

In the future I would appreciate it if you would just remove my post rather than trim it to your liking, True Federalist. 

[NeverAgain]

I can't say I blame him. He probably has close friends and family members who he told previously he was gay, but the North Dakota Republican Party have made perfectly clear they're not willing to accept LGBTQA people in their state. I imagine had it not been for fear of being rejected by the party or its voters because of his sexual orientation, he would have been willing to come out to the public as well as vote for the bill ending discrimination against LGBTQA.

One other thing, whoever threatened this man into voting against his own rights should be thrown out of office, but that state is so backwards in terms of who has the political power that the wrong person will end up facing backlash.

I'm sorry, did I miss the memo. When did LGBT add on two letters? This sounds pretty insensitive and off-topic. Don't get me wrong, I support the LGBT-Q-A? Community, but what do these new things stand for.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I can't say I blame him. He probably has close friends and family members who he told previously he was gay, but the North Dakota Republican Party have made perfectly clear they're not willing to accept LGBTQA people in their state. I imagine had it not been for fear of being rejected by the party or its voters because of his sexual orientation, he would have been willing to come out to the public as well as vote for the bill ending discrimination against LGBTQA.

One other thing, whoever threatened this man into voting against his own rights should be thrown out of office, but that state is so backwards in terms of who has the political power that the wrong person will end up facing backlash.

I'm sorry, did I miss the memo. When did LGBT add on two letters? This sounds pretty insensitive and off-topic. Don't get me wrong, I support the LGBT-Q-A? Community, but what do these new things stand for.

Queer/Questioning and either Asexual or Allies, not sure.

[Brittain33]

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? 

It's a sexual orientation.

That is a label, not a description.

"Psychological condition" is also a label. It's all semantics.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

You have to feel bad for the guy that he was so far in the closet he felt he had to vote against his own rights. In this day and age, no one should feel like that.

Nah, you have a right to privacy, not hypocrisy.  I'm glad he was outed.

[Torie]

You have to feel bad for the guy that he was so far in the closet he felt he had to vote against his own rights. In this day and age, no one should feel like that.

Nah, you have a right to privacy, not hypocrisy.  I'm glad he was outed.

Again, I don't think what one does in one's private life necessarily is co-extensive, or should be, with one's public policy views.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

You have to feel bad for the guy that he was so far in the closet he felt he had to vote against his own rights. In this day and age, no one should feel like that.

Nah, you have a right to privacy, not hypocrisy.  I'm glad he was outed.

Again, I don't think what one does in one's private life necessarily is co-extensive, or should be, with one's public policy views.

If someone is in the closet and consistently opposing gay rights legislation, they should be outed.  If they don't want to be outed, they shouldn't be fighting against gay rights.  Whether the hypocrisy comes from a place of self-hatred, pure political opportunism, or both is ultimately incidental.

[Torie]

You have to feel bad for the guy that he was so far in the closet he felt he had to vote against his own rights. In this day and age, no one should feel like that.

Nah, you have a right to privacy, not hypocrisy.  I'm glad he was outed.

Again, I don't think what one does in one's private life necessarily is co-extensive, or should be, with one's public policy views.

If someone is in the closet and consistently opposing gay rights legislation, they should be outed.  If they don't want to be outed, they shouldn't be fighting against gay rights.  Whether the hypocrisy comes from a place of self-hatred, pure political opportunism, or both is ultimately incidental.

No, one can be gay, not self hating, and think SSM is bad public policy - or even bad for gays. Really. Being closeted or not may be due to non political considerations. Actually, un-closeted gays opposing SSM was not all that uncommon 15 years ago. Fortunately this issue is fading away. I don't think this politician's outing will have much impact on his political career. And that's progress baby! 

[Holmes]

Did those gays oppose same-sex marriage because of their personal beliefs, or because they were pressured by a heteronormative society into accepting the fact that same-sex marriage can never be a reality, or even a possibility?

[Torie]

Did those gays oppose same-sex marriage because of their personal beliefs, or because they were pressured by a heteronormative society into accepting the fact that same-sex marriage can never be a reality, or even a possibility?

The former.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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? 

It's a sexual orientation.

That is a label, not a description.

"Psychological condition" is also a label. It's all semantics.

Yes, it can be, but not in the sense in which I was using it.  The point is "sexual orientation" without any further definition of what that means was not in any sense an answer to the question I was asking.