Anti-gay lawmaker outed by man he flirted online

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What is "anti-gay" about this person?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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? 

[🐒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.

[🐒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.

[🐒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.

[🐒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.

[🐒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.