Why out them at all? One would think that outing them would only help moderate gays see that there really are gay people who are also...GASP!... republican!

I could care less if someone is gay, as long as you arent committing a crime, to each his own.

Mark,
As a Catholic and Democrat I agreed with your general comments, but many on the right, especially the far right christian part of the conserative movement such as Dr. Dobson only see the sin and castigate both the sinner and the sin as one. Also they are the ones that are so unbearing of sexual wrongs that it becomes fair play to show them the very party they support as 'upholding moral values" is in fact not all that moral!! And I find hope for you at last... Your comment ..to put it bluntly, a rich man of impeccable sexual morals who is self-centered and consumed with concern for his wealth is in far greater danger of damnation.. Shows hope that maybe you will look closer at the tax policies of the republican party and see the danger of creating super rich class of 'entitled'

An I'm sure you'll also denounce Sean Hannity, who just two nights ago, defended Melanie Morgan and her co-author's claim in their new book that Cindy Sheehan had an affair with Lew Rockwell and is "addicted to online porn." Let's hear some more from Bush supporters about how terrible it is that the "left" is using private sexual behavior for political gain and exposing people who enter the public arena to such terrible, invasive scrutiny.

The Republicans: supporters of Gay rights who would never think of bringing sex into politics.

lol!

That dog won't hunt - neither with the Right nor the Left.

Ohio,

I have to disagree with you on Dobson - for years the only thing I ever heard about the man is what a horrible bigot he and his Focus on the Family were...I naturally discounted those stories, but I also didn't know for certain so I never rose to Dobson's defense. Bored one day at work I put on the radio and came across Dobson doing one of his Focus on the Family broadcasts and over the past year I've been a frequent listener - in all this time - and a time when homosexual issues have been discussed by Dobson and his guests - there has been no condemnation of homosexuals as persons. There has been condemnation of gay marriage (a position I agree with - though I am committed to vote against passage of a constitutional amendment on such at the behest of a recently deceased gay friend...long story); there has been condemnation of proposals to teach children in public schools that homoseuxal sex is morally equivalent to heterosexual sex (another position I agree with)...but there has been no "gays are evil" sort of bigoted statements. I think that Dobson has been slandered as regards homosexuality.

As for my comment on the rich - come on, we're both Catholics...and thus, conservative or otherwise, we're not going to be enamoured of wild-fire capitalism. This is as natural as praying the Rosary. That said - the concept of forcibly re-distributing wealth is, in my view, un-Christian...it doesn't help the morals of the person we're taking the money from, doesn't help the morals of the person we're giving the money to, and it doesn't help us, who take and give, become people who do the work of God in our lives.

Ed,

I'd have to see the full context before I can make a judgement - but if it is a case where someone is bringing up another's private sexual deviancy then it is wrong unless it can be demonstrated conclusively that such sexual deviancy violates the law or clearly led to other acts detrimental to public safety and good order.

I know this will be redundant but Arontime has missed the point completely. Mark's post is yet again highlighting another hypocritical position of the 'Rats. You see Mr. Simpleton, the democrats run on a pro-gay platform but choose to act homophobic when they think it will help their political cause.

It would be like republicans "outing" a pro-life donkey candidate in an attempt to scare away his pro-baby killing er, um.. i mean pro-choice supporters.

Get it? Man you libs are thick...

Why, exactly, do the lefties view a Republican gay as a pejorative and a Democrat gay as symbol of great pride? It really is mind boggling.

Heaven forbid those of us that don't want to wear our sexuality on our shirt sleeves.

"Much worse than the sin of homosexual sex - or hypocritically hiding such sex - is the sin of ruthless destruction of the lives of others."

Unless your destroying Clinton's (Bill and Hillary), or Murtha's, or Kerry's. As long as the Right hates the person, destroy away, right?

Mark -

I don't think OhioGolfer is talking about "forcibly re-distributing" the wealth.

The economic philosophy of progressives is about making sure that those who use the public infrastructure to gain wealth return some of that wealth back to the public treasury. (What successful capitalist venture is not in some way the result of, and reliant upon, infrastructure and institutions built with public monies?)

A progressive economic philosophy is also about letting the market reward those who work hard and have good ideas, while at the same time seeking to ensure that everyone at least starts at the same starting line.

And as Ohio alludes to, a progressive economic philosophy is also about preventing the rise of a permanent aristocracy. This was something the founders were concerned about. If enormous wealth is passed on untaxed to people who otherwise did nothing to earn it (read: W, Kerry, Paris Hilton), then we are in danger of establishing a powerful elite who get more powerful with each generation. There is nothing inherently "conservative" about allowing this - indeed, it was Republican Teddy Roosevelt who sought to mitigate the powerful advantages of inherited wealth and excessive monopoly.

This in turn recognizes that a totally unregulated market will in fact end up as a greedy free-for-all that ultimately will damage the long-run propects of that very market, and also threaten our democracy. Or in the words of FDR, regulation is necessary to save capitalism from itself...

So you tell me, Mark - which economic philosophy more closely aligns with Christian values?: the one outlined above, or the dog-eat-dog, corporate-welfare driven, radically unregulated crony capitalist greed-fest advocated by the Bushicons?

An I'm sure you'll also denounce Sean Hannity, who just two nights ago, defended Melanie Morgan and her co-author's claim in their new book that Cindy Sheehan had an affair with Lew Rockwell and is "addicted to online porn."

Is Cindy Sheehan running for public office? I had no idea. I heard the interview and dont recall the authors proclaiming their political affiliations.

Perhaps the authors...oh I dont know...wanted to burst Sheehan's bubble of moral righteousness, as it seems she is the only mother who lost a son in Iraq and therefore can lord it over the rest of us.

Hannity should have brought up Studds, the democratic congressman who actually had sex with an underage intern, not just sending the young man risque emails. Would that have made you happy?

GOP 4 ME -

"...the democrats run on a pro-gay platform but choose to act homophobic when they think it will help their political cause.

In what way have democrats "acted homophobic"? A main side-effect of homophobia is people having to pretend they are not gay, precisely because knowing opens that person to discrimination. It is not our side who cares whether a person is gay or not. We couldn't care less if a candidate for public office is gay. It is your side that has a problem with gays running for office. And it is your side that constantly tries to score points with your homophobic base by absurdly insisting that only democrats are gay.

Please - It is your side that is less likely to vote for someone because they are gay! Yep - that's called homophobia. For us, being gay isn't an issue that factors into whether we judge someone fit to represent us in congress. We are as likely to vote for a gay representive as a hetero one - the important thing is whether that person can do the job of representing our values.

If your side doesn't care whether a candidate is gay, then you shouldn't have a problem with any of this - right? What precisely is your problem with people knowing whether a particular candidate is gay? hmmmm, Is it that knowing a candidate is gay might hurt his/her chances with Republican voters? Nooooo, of course not! For instance, you Republicans would never try to use gay-bashing ballot initiatives to drive homophobes to the polls. Never in a million years. So of course you are just as likely to vote for gay Republicans as straight ones - right??

Riiiiiiiight.

Do you see what a logical pretzel you've wound yourself into?

Or to use another metaphor: that's a pretty big shovel you're digging yourself into a hole with. All I can say is, keep digging pal... keep digging.

Aaron - I remember the time I was in 1111 Constitution Ave at IRS headquarters and saw the IRS Property Seizure Team. The black jump suits, stun grenades, and MP5 Machine Guns sure gave ME the impression that failure to follow the tax laws would lead to FORCEABLE SEIZURE. It is that underlying threat of prosecution that makes many people pay - you know?

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=113737060&imageID=1218918437

Kahn - you are so completely lost (or purposely obtuse). We were talking about "forcible redistribution" of wealth, and you bring up IRS seizure teams?

Um, people are required to pay taxes, you know. Aren't you Republicons all about "the rule of law"? Not paying taxes = breaking the law (unless of course you can buy congresspeople to write loopholes for you - which is the system we have now).

So, do you consider having to pay taxes "forcible redistribution of wealth"? hmmm, was that an interstate highway you rode to work on? Or perhaps it was a subway? Oh, was that a school where you learned to read and write? If you went to college and learned skills to either get a good job or build a business - did that college get any public funding at all? Are the markets you trade stocks on made stable by a publically funded US military? Are the scientific breakthoughs you take for granted - tools that you enlist to help make money for yourself - in any way made possible by public investments in scientific research?

Why, exactly, do the lefties view a Republican gay as a pejorative and a Democrat gay as symbol of great pride?

It's not a pejorative. Righty blogs sure are acting like it is, though. With the level of outrage over the outing of the senator, you'd think someone accused him of murdering children in his spare time.

We of the GOP; we of the political right; we of the Christian/Believer community DO NOT HATE GAY PEOPLE.

No, you just don't think they deserve to be equal Americans. Because, you know...they're gay!. And that's icky! Plus there's something bad about it in the Bible. But really, that just amounts to subjugation...not hatred. There's a world of difference!

I also love your feigned surprise that the GOP could run on a gay-bashing ticket and then have it blow up in their faces. Good li'l foot soldier!

Oh, Chris, get real. You whine......"Unless your destroying Clinton's (Bill and Hillary), or Murtha's, or Kerry's. As long as the Right hates the person, destroy away, right?"

I suppose that arresting a man for robbing a 7-11 is "destroying his life", eh? He Or was he arrested only because the police "hated" him?

This hyperemotionalism on the Left is soooo tiresome. Noting that Murtha declared Marines to be "cold-blooded killers" before any evidence had even been heard, much less presented to a jury, totally ignoring their Constitionally-guaranteed right to be considered innocent until PROVEN guilty, is hardly an act of hatred toward Murtha, or an effort to "destroy" him. (Though his attack on unconvicted Marines seemed pretty hateful, and even an effort to destroy them.)

Clinton could not get through a week without shooting himself in the foot, one way or another. He CREATED one legal problem after another, one sexual situation after another. No one on the right invented any of this stuff. Noticing it is hardly the same as creating it to
"destroy" him. Clinton had control over his situation. All he ever had to do was keep his pecker parked, or at least indulge on his own time with non-subordinates, as long as they were willing. All he had to do was follow the law.

Kerry? He told his own lies, all by his own self. So why blame anyone else? "Destroy" Kerry due to "hatred"? Come on.

It's called personal responsibility for ones' own actions---evidently a completely foreign concept to the radical Left, as they seem to get the vapors every time an effort is made to apply it to one of their own.

But the Left keeps telling us that homosexuality is fine, good, normal, and hardly shameful. You celebrate it. You insist on teaching it in schools---not how to BE homosexual (at least not yet) but how to embrace those who are, in a loving and non-judgemental way. So we merely NOTE that now you are being more vicious, more judgemental, and more hostile to homosexuals than any so-called Religious Right person ever has been, for the simple and evidently all-encompassing reason that it might help you politically.

So your actions are seen as truly hateful to the outed gays you are callously trying to harm, as well as amazingly hypocritical. They have done nothing illegal, as far as we know. They are simply being who they are---and that "who" is supposedly loved, embraced, and even celebrated by those who are now acting as if it is a horrible thing which should disqualify them from public service.

You radical Lefties have, first, invented this bizarre theory that Republicans "hate" gays and will not vote for them, and then chosen to publicly identify gay Republicans, implying that their gayness will lose them their positions. You start with a delusion and use that to support a hypocrisy. And you wonder why we laugh at you.

Aarontime,

Precisely - taxing the rich to support the poor is the forcible redistribution of wealth...it is theft. The whole concept of taking money from one person and giving it to another is wrong...but, here we are, its 2006 and we've been engaging in this actitivy for more than 70 years...can't undo what we've done, nor can we willy-nilly stop doing it. Our job is to work out ways and means of changing over from the theft paradigm of today in to a genuine help paradigm which would actually get people who are poor to be non-poor.

Love those Errortime rants. Note the one about the moral purity of the Liberals, especially as compared to the insatiable greed of the "Bushicons".

No that it had anything to do with the thread, which was the hypocrisy of the extremist radical Left in paying lip service to the glories of homosexuality on one hand and then showing their true intolerance by ridiculing it on the other.

I'm sure Error could have, and probably will, come up with an equally fervent rant on his conviction that all conservatives really, deep down, DO "hate" homosexuals, complete with mandatory references to the mythical but oh so popular fantasy of the "Religious Right". After all, why let facts get in the way of a perfectly satisfying Airhead rant?

And it would make no more sense than his pseudo-intellectual pontificating about the evils of an unregulated economy.

You've hit every nail square on the head, on the whole roof, the whole way, Mark.

I'd like to give my general thoughts on how I stand regarding homosexuality.

First of all, I do not hate gays because of what they are doing, and who they are, simply because; It is a mental struggle of issues regarding choice, I understand that!. However, I do stronglybelieve that homosexuality is a sin, and also, at the same time, They can be and will be forgiven provided that, that person flees from their sin, and asks for God's help to abstain from their sinful nature! Which in turn, is why God has given man the ability to choose that which is "right" from "wrong" and in the end, it is totally between that person and God Himself!

So, The best we can do for now, is, Do our best to encourage morality in America, that is pleasing to God and pray for those folk in need of a touch in their struggles with homosexuality, even though it is wrong, but, NEVER EVER, hate people!!!! Hate will destroy you faster than anything, and is an abomination to God!

As far as gay people in the political sphere, It really should not be a big deal, and as long as that person or persons, is meeting the standards to govern in an acceptable way towards the betterment of society. However, they do not set a good example for the lifestyles of our younger generation in the future, and that's really why I see a good thing in trying to keep our marriage law defined as: Between one man and one woman. Other than that?, by all means, keep our every day governing, up, running, and right on trucking!!

Jeremiah

Jeremiah,

To clarify - to be a homosexual is not a sin. Ie, if a person has an inborn trait to be attracted to members of the same sex, then that is not a sin. God doesn't make mistakes - though we must all recognise that we live in a very long fallen world and that there has been a steady decay of the physical world since the fall - still, everything is here for a purpose and all things will work towards the fulfillment of God's will.

Sin isn't a thing, but an event - it is the conscious turning away from God and towards the self. The sin in homosexual sex is that it takes the joy and hope of sex as granted by God and turns it inwards - it thwarts the purpose of sex, and puts the person at risk of becoming entirely self-centered and thus lost forever. Keep in mind that this is also possible in heterosexual sex - heterosexuals, especially by the use of birth control - can also turn the sex act inwards and become self-centered on matters sexual but it remains that heterosexual sex, as an act, is in accordance with the purpose of sex and is therefor not inherently disordered.

Sees,

Gay bashing ticket? Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about.

As for the rest of your cliche'd rant - true, there might be something "icky" in gay sex, but there is also something "icky" in rap music...and yet I don't hate rappers...

The sin in homosexual sex….heterosexuals, especially by the use of birth control - can also turn the sex act inwards

Mark,

Again, back to your original point, that is ‘outing’ republican gays. The republicans have held up themselves as the party of “moral values” if not by direct statements, at least by implication and by the ‘company’ they keep with the religious right. Clearly, in 2004, the movement by many to place anti-gay marriage acts on many state ballots, as in Ohio, was clearly a blatant move to bring out the moral values group knowing they would vote republican.

While I can question the true morals of the Republican Party in their economic polices, in their immigration policies, and their clear favoritism of that very unchecked wildfire capitalism you apparently are also against, I see no problem in pointing out their hypocrisy when they ‘fall’ in the very sin they claim to be against. Do you really believe that those gays in the Republican are abstaining from sex? Do you really believe there are “no” heterosexual married couples in the party who are using birth control. (yes I know this is a Catholic position basically and not shared by many of the Protestant faiths)

My point is either you (and the party) admit that there is no real moral superiority between either of the parties, that both have there members who have moral failing be that homosexually that includes the act sex, that both have members that fail to uphold their marriage vows, that both have members that use their position for personal gain in ways that violate the moral code; or if you can’t do this than you must accept the your party can not rail against being pointed out where they fall down as being the mortal superior of the two parties as they claim.

Mark,

"God does'nt make mistakes"

That's right!

So, It holds, If there is ever a mistake to be made?
Then it is of man's doing, not of God's, because HE gave US that inherent choice factor, to differentiate, and is only recognised at the reaching of the age of accountability, a fairly young age, maybe 12 - 14 years old, for some people it just depends, but most people born with sound minds, in the common household, are taught the fundamentals of "right". Which should be upheld by all families.

Jeremiah

Mark -

"...taxing the rich to support the poor is the forcible redistribution of wealth...it is theft. The whole concept of taking money from one person and giving it to another is wrong..."

But no one is taking about taking from the rich to give to the poor, Mark. The vast majority of your tax dollars do not go for welfare to the poor. I know the screaming heads on wingnut radio get a lot of mileage from this myth, but it just isn't true. Your taxes mostly go for the things that make up what you on the right seem increasingly unaware of: the common good. This includes the public infrastructure, education, the military, grants for basic scientific research, etc. Those entities that make the largest profits - corporate giants especially - were built with a lot of hard work and innovation, yes; but they also relied heavily upon a working public commons that was supported with public funds. Those that use the public treasury the most should pay more back into the public treasury.

Think of it this way: if you borrow from the community, then shouldn't you give back to it in equal measure? Doesn't that sound like the Christian thing to do?

What we have now is the opposite. Corporate interests heavily use and substantially benefit from our public infrastructure and then mostly stiff us for the bill. As you like to point out here on B4B, corporate profits are at all time highs, resulting in the current run-up in the DOW. But taxes from corporations now account for a smaller percentage of the federal budget than at any time since the 1920's. Offshore bookkeeping and other fraudulent loopholes give corporations ever more clever ways to avoid taxes. Moreover, much of corporate profits these days come directly from the public till in the form of lucrative government contracts. Basically, the federal treasury has become the corporate feeding trough. The result of all this?: the largest public deficits ever run up by any nation in the history of the planet.

So the Right doesn't like welfare to poor individuals. Fair enough. I personally think many criticisms of the Right in this regard are quite valid. For instance, expecting a handout deadens personal initiative, and in this respect can lead to harming an individual more than it helps. Not always - I do think that some people are in genuine need and we should come to their aid. But in general I think there is a broad bi-partisan consensus that welfare can hurt poor communities, which in turn led to the welfare reforms of the 1990's.

So, my question to you is this: don't many of the same criticisms leveled against welfare to individuals also apply to welfare for corporations? If corporations rely on government hand-outs, then aren't they in danger of becoming crippled in the same way that individuals are when they come to expect a handout? We have already seen how many of our large companies are no longer competitive. There are lots of reasons for this, to be sure. But perhaps one reason is that they have come to think they are just entitled to large profits without really earning them. Why be innovative when you can just buy a few congresspeople to throw public tax dollars your way?

Again, it is just a question of fairness and Christian values. What you take from the community chest you should put back in. This was an idea behind the welfare to work programs in the 90's. It's time we put corporate America on a welfare to work program as well.

Almiranta -

So then I take it that you have no problem whatsoever voting for a gay person to represent you in congress - right? Just for the record, why don't you say unequivocally, "I have no problem voting for a gay person for any public office."

What about you, Jeremiah? Any of you?

Gay-bashing ticket? Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about.

For a recent example, look up why right-wing Christians (you know, your people) are so mad at Condi regarding the swearing in of Mark Dybal. Then get back to me about the right-wing Christian view of gays.

Or, for a more electoral flavor, tell me how the GOP fearmongering about the "homosexual agenda" (which nobody can seem to define--but rest assured, if you're a conservative, you need to be scared of it!) during election season and how said undefined-but-scary agenda must not be allowed to advance reflects on the conservative attitude regarding gays. Tell me how when, like clockwork, the GOP starts talking every two years about how letting gays marry will undermine and destroy society as we know it, that's really a fullhearted embrace of gays. Tell me how coming up with amendments and legislation that singles out a certain segment of the population--gays--as being unworthy of all the rights and benefits you enjoy is actually an incredibly pro-gay stance and not subjugation. Go ahead, try to explain all that. Just for starters.

You can't, of course, and I fully expect you to dodge the issue as per usual. Lie to yourself and to your little peanut gallery here all you like; just don't expect people in the real world to buy it.

“But no one is taking about taking from the rich to give to the poor, Mark. The vast majority of your tax dollars do not go for welfare to the poor. I know the screaming heads on wingnut radio get a lot of mileage from this myth, but it just isn't true.”

Oh… Now I see. So why are property taxes for many individuals in my area and communities all around NY getting double digit increases and in some cases over 50% and some over 100% increase in a single year with projections of similar increases for the next 5 years unless we can get entitlement benefits under control?

“So, my question to you is this: don't many of the same criticisms leveled against welfare to individuals also apply to welfare for corporations?”

Are you referring to the special benefits a business might receive in exchange for creating expansions and adding jobs or investing in new technologies? Seems like the difference is day and night. Welfare recipients simply draw off of the system while businesses hopefully create more wealth or save money for their employees, local & federal government the general population as well as themselves. What part don't you get?