Republican politician's moving speech in favor of gay marriage.

[Tuberski]

Lots of parents of gay children still disown them and treat them like garbage.

True, but my point was, it would have been a surprise if she didn't have a gay child.

ACK!

[rah]

True, but my point was, it would have been a surprise if she didn't have a gay child.

ACK!

Have to agree here. I was thinking "go girl" then read that she had a gay daughter. no surprise

[MrFun]

Yeah - I think it's despicable for a parent to stand up for their child.

[rah]

No one is saying that. It's just that when A repug is standing up for gay rights, it's usually discovered later that a loved one is gay. And this isn't a surprise.
I didn't understand that gays were really no different until I got to know one. I'm sure that's the same for most people. Let's face it, most repugs don't commonly associate with gays to come to that understanding. If a close relative comes out, it's more likely to influence those around them. And yes, some people don't get it even then. They should be pitied for their lack of humanity.

[DinoDoc]

No one is saying that. It's just that when A repug is standing up for gay rights, it's usually discovered later that a loved one is gay.

Barry Goldwater?

[Boris Godunov]

Barry Goldwater?

Had a gay grandson.

[Uncle Sparky]

Let's face it, most repugs don't commonly associate with gays to come to that understanding. If a close relative comes out, it's more likely to influence those around them. And yes, some people don't get it even then. They should be pitied for their lack of humanity.

I disagree with this. Most repugs do know gays - like Michele Bachmann's husband or ex-congressman Larry Craig. And that's why they hate homosexuals - they think all of them are self loathing, lying, glory hole seeking hypocrites.

[DinoDoc]

Had a gay grandson.

Genuinely curious here. Did he know at the time?

[DaShi]

Genuinely curious here. If you didn't know anything about him, why bring him up?

[DinoDoc]

Why would I know anything about Barry Goldwater's gay grandson?

[DaShi]

You think that you brought up his grandson? It must be tough living with a learning disorder.

[Boris Godunov]

Genuinely curious here. Did he know at the time?

Goldwater identified his grandson as gay in a 1994 Washington Post article, so he definitely knew about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater072894.htm

Whether or not that was the primary motivation for his support for gay rights, I don't know. He was always much more libertarian on social issues and was fond of thumbing his nose at the Religious Right (he was pro-choice).

[Zevico]

Uh, no. There is a sizeable number of Christians and other religious folks (and I'd guess a few non-religious, I guess, although I've never encountered such) who don't "love the sinner." Physical violence against homosexuals in the U.S. is still inordinately high.

That's exactly what he's doing. Read it again:

Hopefully more Republicans will come to realize that gay people are human beings.

And read this:

"Loving the sinner, hating the sin" is just a politically correct code for, "I hate ******s."

In short, MrFun seriously thinks that every person who opposes gay marriage "hates ******s." He doesn't have any proof of that, of course. To the contrary, many deny that they hate gays and also oppose gay marriage. As a proposition, this statement implicitly condemns violence. There is no evidence that those who hew to that doctrine, or purport to, are linked to violence. The fact that some people do engage in violence against homosexuals means that they are opposed to the doctrine of "love the sinner, condemn the sin." Vigilantism, violence and opposition to the rule of law is implicit in an act of violence against a homosexual.
And there is a further problem: note the wording "is just code for." It's the passive voice which is key here. In MrFun's view anyone who says "love the sinner, hate the sin" is a liar. Everyone, without exception, anywhere, regardless of their lives, actions, and intellectual place in Christian thought, is automatically and necessarily a liar if they accept that a Christian must love the sinner but hate the sin. The trouble is that "love the sinner, hate the sin" is not a doctrine which, if accepted, necessarily renders one intellectually dishonest and willing to lie "for the greater good." Intellectual dishonesty of that kind must itself be a key component of that person or group ideology. And the difficulty is that Mr Fun simply cannot prove that this kind of dishonesty is endemic or essential to -all- modern American Evangelical theology or thought. Islamists promulgate the doctrine of the necessary lie under the guise of taqiyah; Marxist-Leninists do so under the guise of Sorielanism; Nazism was its most open, active and ironically enough, honest propagator. But modern Christians, the strident opponents of Communism and Nazism, and who are arguably one of the most significant forces in favour of democracy? Where's the proof? Where's the evidence that all anti-gay marriage Mormons, all anti-gay marriage Catholics, all anti-gay marriage evangelical Christians--all of them, not just some minority--hew to this bigotry?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Though MrFun, to be fair, said that people that say "loving the sinner, hating the sin" are "I hate ******s" types, not necessarily those who oppose gay marriage (like, our President, Barack Obama).

[MrFun]

Though MrFun, to be fair, said that people that say "loving the sinner, hating the sin" are "I hate ******s" types, not necessarily those who oppose gay marriage (like, our President, Barack Obama).

You have reading comprehension. Teach Zevico how to read.