The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Gay Republican elected lawmaker from Pennsylvania comes out

Let's ask another question,could he have come out before the election and kept his job? I'll bet my house the answer would have been no.
 
I'm not a one-issue voter either. I'm sorry he was elected; his ideas will weaken the community if they were to carry the day.
 
Ninja108 said:
Let's ask another question,could he have come out before the election and kept his job? I'll bet my house the answer would have been no.
Click to expand...
I believe somebody said that he ran unopposed by a Democrat?? Ostensibly, that would have guaranteed him keeping his job.

But, depending on when he may have come out, I wouldn't be so sure. If he had come out before the Primaries, I have the feeling that the RNC would have come up with a competing candidate, to try as hard as possible to have him Primaried.

Of course when some of the Republican moderates (such as R. Lugar - Senator in Indiana) got Primaried, it came back to bite the Republicans in the ass.
 
^ You and I know that this is exactly what would have happened.
 
I would LOVE not to be a one issue voter but when it's in the Republician party platform to make us second class citizens,hard not to be.
 
JayQueer said:
Okay, from your argument (and Rolyo's), you believe that gay men who are promiscuous are being healthy, and that gay men who are in monogamous relationships are "suppressing their innate sexuality" and "living lives of deprivation."

It logically follows then, you (and Rolyo) DO NOT support marriage equality for gay men. The purpose of a marriage is to unite two adults who wish to share their love and commitment (and that includes sex) together by making their union a covenant or agreement between the two parties.

If a gay man is busy hooking up with different men every night, there is no point to being tied to down to just one man. Why be married when it is only living a "life of deprivation" and being "self-hating" when one could just have sex with as many men as possible?? Why would you want the government to legalize gay marriage when it is so harmful to gay men??

So once again, all of you who believe that "gay men who are promiscuous are rightfully expressing their healthy sexuality" MUST also be opposed to marriage equality for gay men. If not, you are a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that you don't understand liberty -- that's the only reason you can't see the point here.

That you don't understand liberty is shown especially by the fact that you have this urge to define marriage not just for yourself, but for everyone else. That rests on an attitude that you own other people and so can tell them what to do. That's not surprising, of course; much of the Republican party 'philosophy' rests on the proposition that some people can own others.

It's also that urge that makes you confused about what people have actually said: your anti-liberty view of other people twists things so it's doubtful you even are capable of seeing what others have actually said; those things have to be filtered through a lens where it's okay to exercise ownership over others, so you fail to see where people are arguing for liberty.

Gay men who are promiscuous are rightfully expressing their healthy sexuality -- just as are gay men who are living exclusively monogamously.
 
Even if the GOP completely reformed its stance on gay people it would still have absolutely dismal backwards attitudes as a party about women, blacks, hispanics, minorities in general, and people of non-faith or people of faith-other-than-Christianity. I would lose respect for anyone who was against the GOP on its gay stance but merrily switched if they became a gay-tolerant party, big time.
 
The most telling thing to me was that he immediately leapt from abstinence to the "alternative" of a promiscuous, STD-laden gay lifestyle.

Sounded really, really brainwashed to me to see only those two options.
 
xbuzzerx said:
Even if the GOP completely reformed its stance on gay people it would still have absolutely dismal backwards attitudes as a party about women, blacks, hispanics, minorities in general, and people of non-faith or people of faith-other-than-Christianity. I would lose respect for anyone who was against the GOP on its gay stance but merrily switched if they became a gay-tolerant party, big time.
Click to expand...

ADDING to your post (and really I'm not done, I could add more):

They would still "LOVE THE FETUS, HATE THE CHILD." To hell with ANY kind of support programs for children, such as Head Start, family help with food stamps, subsidized school lunches, etc. In fact, SCREW public schooling...and if the parents can't afford to send the child to a private school (with vouchers not giving the parents enough help to afford it anyway), let the damned child ROT being taught by a drug-addicted gambling single parent who is trying to work three minimum-wage part time jobs with no health care.

Of course, if all the poor, the handicapped, the mentally incompetent, etc. just went off into their corners AND DIED from exposure or starvation or diarrhea, that's all fine...the Republicans would have fewer Democratic "useless eaters" to worry about.

The Republican Party is dead to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top