Gay, Republican, and in love with an illegal...

[heliochrome85]

In this little article from the Washington Post, i found this little nugget of irony.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 0091204182

Another Washington gay couple, who requested that their names not be published because the foreign partner is a Latino man currently living in the country under false pretenses and the American partner is a prominent Republican whose identity could easily lead authorities to the other man, said gays and lesbians fall in love in the same unpredictable way as straight people. Sometimes, the object of that love happens to be a foreigner.

really makes it difficult to toe the party line of NO GAYS, and NO ILLEGALS, doesnt it?

[IBCoupe]

Nah. They've got the RINO label for situations like this. "Divergent thought? Out, ye Satan!"

Disclaimer: The views expressed by this poster do not actually represent this poster's views on Republicans in general. This poster is, as are most, capable of discerning between loonies and mainstream within every political movement.

[audtatious]

Right, because all Republicans are homophobes, hate all immigrants, and speak like a preacher during the Salem witch trials.

At least that's what some try to represent

[IBCoupe]

Reminds me of The West Wing - Josh Lyman (modeled on Rahm Emmanuel) asks a friend, who happens to be an openly gay Republican congressman how he could remain a member of a party that advocates the removal of his rights. This was part of the reply:

"You know I never understood why you gun control people don't all join the NRA. They've got two million members. You bring three million to the next meeting, call a vote; 'All those in favor of banning guns?' Bam! Move on."

"That's a heck of a strategy, Matt. I'll bring that up in a meeting."

"I agree with 95% of the Republican platform. I believe in local government. I'm in favor of individual rights rather than group rights. I believe free markets lead to free people and that this country needs a strong national defense. My life doesn't have to be about being a homosexual."

[audtatious]

Pretty much.

[heliochrome85]

Right, because all Republicans are homophobes, hate all immigrants, and speak like a preacher during the Salem witch trials.

where are the prominent voices demonstrating tolerance? As spineless as the democrats are, they have bigger balls than the GOP leadership who is too scared to say what they believe outloud.

[stebo0728]

... As spineless as the democrats are, they have bigger balls ...

Thats what Monica said ...

[audtatious]

Tolerance to whom? Are republicans physically attacking gays or just trying to keep the term "marriage" to mean man and woman? Are Republicans attacking immigrants or are they supporting legal immigrants while lambasting illegal ones?

I can play the game too, why are Democrats always so apologetic?

[heliochrome85]

Tolerance to whom? Are republicans physically attacking gays or just trying to keep the term "marriage" to mean man and woman? Are Republicans attacking immigrants or are they supporting legal immigrants while lambasting illegal ones?

I can play the game too, why are Democrats always so apologetic?

The conservatives act as if they are the only ones who live in this country. Marriage is how THEY define it, even if the vast majority of them cant keep their marriages intact. Their party leaders are amoral hacks. Eg: Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh.

And yes, Republicans ARE attacking immigrants. They attacked them in New York. They attacked them in Murfeesboro. They attacked them in Arizona. They attacked them in California.

open your eyes and stop blaming the big bad mainstream media for the actions of the GOP.

[stebo0728]

And yes, Republicans ARE attacking immigrants. They attacked them in New York. They attacked them in Murfeesboro. They attacked them in Arizona. They attacked them in California.

Not sure what you mean by referencing New York and Murfreesboro as being attacks on immigrants.

As far as Arizona and California, those were defensive actions not offensive. Asking someone to please leave if they are not here legally is not an attack. Saying that we are going to decide to make sure you are here legally or take steps to make sure you leave is not an attack.

If on an issue, full enforcement is not possible, then the METHOD and LEVEL of enforcement begins to sculpt a perception of your intentions regarding the issue.

[audtatious]

Yep, those inbred bastards. f*** them and what they want, gays deserve to change things to what they want so they feel better. POWER OF THE MINORITY!!!!!

Immigrants or Muslims? Because we all know only Republicans are capable of doing such things.

Never said people who associate with GOP have never done wrong things. We should all thank Mother Earth for the Dem party, the party of fairness, anti-racism and the party of the poor.

[heliochrome85]

Some muslims are born in the US. Most arent.

and it wasnt asking people to please leave in Arizona. It was if you looked ethnic, you could be stopped and asked to SHOW YOUR PAPERS.

it is physically impossible to fully enforce immigration. the country is too big. its like asking to erect a barrier on every beach on the US coast line. in light of this, smart immigration policy must be implemented. As til now, i have yet to see ANY evidence that this isnt the case.

also, where are those headless bodies Gov Brewer was harping about all summer? oh yeah, they were made up.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/T ... the-desert

[audtatious]

Some muslims are born in the US. Most arent.

And a couple of attacks on Muslims, along with some vandalism, means GOP is the only ones to blame. Nice

and it wasnt asking people to please leave in Arizona. It was if you looked ethnic, you could be stopped and asked to SHOW YOUR PAPERS.

Federal law allows this. AZ law only mandated a validation of residency based upon a lawful stop. GESTAPO NOT FOUND

it is physically impossible to fully enforce immigration. the country is too big. its like asking to erect a barrier on every beach on the US coast line. in light of this, smart immigration policy must be implemented. As til now, i have yet to see ANY evidence that this isnt the case.

It's not impossible. It's just not "kind hearted" to do so thus the p**** Dems and p**** far-right religious nuts don't want it to happen.

also, where are those headless bodies Gov Brewer was harping about all summer? oh yeah, they were made up.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/T ... the-desert

That means everything else is made up too and should never be discussed again. Thus, there is no immigration problem in the US.

Discussing these issues with you is worthless and I'm sure you feel the same. I'll take my opinions and shove them up my a** as long as you do the same thing because in the long run they don't mean s*** to the big picture.

[dusred]

That means everything else is made up too and should never be discussed again. Thus, there is no immigration problem in the US.

Discussing these issues with you is worthless and I'm sure you feel the same. I'll take my opinions and shove them up my a** as long as you do the same thing because in the long run they don't mean s*** to the big picture.

Totally know how you feel. Everytime I think about responding to a ignorant comment of Helio, IB or others I slug myself in the balls and then I feel better.

And yes, Republicans ARE attacking immigrants. They attacked them in New York. They attacked them in Murfeesboro. They attacked them in Arizona. They attacked them in California.

Immigrants. You conveniently left the status of the immigrants out of your sentence. Just in case you don't know what I'm talking about I'll post it below:

Illegal

Please. . . kill me with a knife.

edit=
Why can't I make the font as big as the screen? Grr. I hate the new NIco.

[AZhitman]

The part that my friend Tariq is missing is the "silent" in "silent majority".

Conservatives aren't "anti-gay" - they're "anti-drama". Do what you want, but quit throwing it in everyone's face.

I know that doesn't fit with your worldview, but otherwise, there'd be a lot more "anti-gay" legislation. Think about it.

[AZhitman]

and it wasnt asking people to please leave in Arizona. It was if you looked ethnic, you could be stopped and asked to SHOW YOUR PAPERS.

Wrong. No further discussion needed.

Let's stay on-topic.

also, where are those headless bodies Gov Brewer was harping about all summer? oh yeah, they were made up.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/T ... the-desert

So, there's a wacko Governor in America? OMG. Big f***ing deal. Why the tantrum?

Let's stay on-topic.

[IBCoupe]

Do what you want, but quit throwing it in everyone's face.

So why is there even a debate about gay marriage? Gay adoption?

[audtatious]

Because the majority see man/wife is different than man/man or woman/woman in regards to the term marriage whereas the later two want them to mean the same.

As far as adoption some people are simply not comfortable with it. Personally I don't have a real issue with it as long as there is proper screening, just as there would be with non-gay applicants. Now, if you had more people wanting to adopt than there are kids to adopt I would put a preference towards the non-gay family than the gay family as I feel it is higher on the importance scale to have a male and female role model in the kids life. Guess I could be attacked on that preference but it's my opinion.

[heliochrome85]

one would think that federal involvement in who gets married would be in direct conflict with the concept of small government...

[audtatious]

Pretty much. The only reason the Gov need to be involved at all is usually due to the name change of the wife (other than gay marriage I guess) and then I guess tax code and such was written around it? I'm not that familiar with the historical reasoning the Gov is so involved with marriage.

[stebo0728]

one would think that federal involvement in who gets married would be in direct conflict with the concept of small government...

Agreed.

It used to be in many law books, that at least the sexual acts involved in homosexual relations were illegal. If that is the case, then government would be a bit at odds with itself to have laws against those acts, but allow the marriage (or union whatever we want to call it). Now if the acts are not illegal, then what business is it of the governments really? Many states now dont even do blood screenings anymore.

[IBCoupe]

Because the majority see man/wife is different than man/man or woman/woman in regards to the term marriage whereas the later two want them to mean the same.

Sort of undermines the supposition that Conservatives are only "anti-drama." Unless, of course, Greg is using a narrow definition of "conservatives."

[audtatious]

Realize I stated "majority" and not "Conservative majority". There are plenty of Democrats that are against gay marriage as shown via voting in California and others.

[IBCoupe]

I noticed you did, but the more I thought about it, I came to realize that it's a distinction that didn't really matter for my point. Do you really think there are enough non-Conservatives out there opposed to gay marriage that "the majority" doesn't include a majority of conservatives?

[audtatious]

Do I think the larger number is toward the Conservative side? Probably. There are plenty of "Conservatives" who are OK with gay marriage too. Realize you don't have to be a religious anti-gay-marry anti-abortion supporter to be Conservative. Just as you don't need to support Socialism to be a Democrat, regardless of how we like to lump them together. There are a whole buncha Democrats who are religious in nature. Hell, most of the Dems in charge would associate themselves as Christians.

[IBCoupe]

You're right, and it may be that the most prominent conservatives don't resemble the average conservative at all. But I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that the majority of conservatives (as defined by modern American politics) are opposed to gay marriage.

[stebo0728]

Well just speaking from a personal standpoint, I dont consider homosexuality to be a moral lifestyle, but I still am not comfortable having the government (a secular governmental body) telling anyone who they can and cant be with, or who they can and cant have legal grouping with. Its possible to be conservative on morality, and want small non intrusive government at the same time.

[IBCoupe]

I agree that that's a possible route to being conservative while not being againt gay marriage. I don't know how common it is, though.

[audtatious]

I love illegal aliens.....See my rape tree?

[heliochrome85]

http://gawker.com/5641717/montana-gop-s ... y-outlawed