Documentary Trolls GOP succesfully

[Kuya]

the hypocrisy is pandering to the gay=evil crowd (the core of the anti gay marriage movement) while being gay.

You've conflated a bunch of ideas for your benefit. For starters, the gay= evil crowed is mostly concerned with the issue of marriage, in which case there is no basis for calling hypocrisy, because hypocrisy means saying one thing and doing another. If he is gay, he may have a lover or engages in sexual play with someone of the same sex, in which case him arguing for the banning of homosexual conduct and by that i mean any sort of casual union between two people of the same sex whilst he was himself in one could be considered hypocrisy but that's not the case.

Unless said republican is secretly married with a man in another country, then he is no hypocrite, as because he may be gay does not mean he cares nor supports same sex marriage. This is an assumption without basis, a homosexual man has no obligation to support gay marriage or even to not oppose it, he can have his reasons, and you can at best call him a traitor, but that's about it.

Next you're going to tell me Jews opposing Israel is hypocrisy.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

The Finesse - while I agree with you, you suck...like really hard. Just so you know.

People complain about liberals being pussies and not fighting back. I'm sorry I stick my dick in the faces of people who ruin society with backwards and hypocritical views in the stead of those who won't.

Pacifism is a beautiful concept, unfortunately it's worked against our society for the past 12 years.

[archibaldcrane]

I stick my cock in people's faces with the best of 'em - you are not the best of 'em.

Your ad hominems are just so...tired and, I dunno - out of nowhere? It's just nothing but sighs and eye-rolls over here. This isn't 5th grade, these are real life (forums) with consequences you take to the grave!

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

You've conflated a bunch of ideas for your benefit. For starters, the gay= evil crowed is mostly concerned with the issue of marriage, in which case there is no basis for calling hypocrisy, because hypocrisy means saying one thing and doing another. If he is gay, he may have a lover or engages in sexual play with someone of the same sex, in which case him arguing for the banning of homosexual conduct and by that i mean any sort of casual union between two people of the same sex whilst he was himself in one could be considered hypocrisy but that's not the case.

Unless said republican is secretly married with a man in another country, then he is no hypocrite, as because he may be gay does not mean he cares nor supports same sex marriage. This is an assumption without basis, a homosexual man has no obligation to support gay marriage or even to not oppose it, he can have his reasons, and you can at best call him a traitor, but that's about it.

Next you're going to tell me Jews opposing Israel is hypocrisy.

Backwards logic is BACKWARDS.

These guys crusade against gay marriage because they call homosexuality abbhorent, sinful, against god's will - and this is their argument for why marriage is a union between a man and a women.

Israel is a state and it's actions effect relations between several states in the region, Judaism is at once both a religious belief that may be adopted by a state, and a heritage dating back before the state officially existed.

Being a Jew against Israel is an ignorant argument, being a Jew against Judaism gives you more of a point, but doesn't make the point you want to get across for a confrontational argument because it makes no sense.

[archibaldcrane]

@Kuya of course all of this would have to be taken on a case-by-case basis. You know the ins and outs (no pun intended) of closeted dudes better than I do, and I'm sure some of these self-hating faggots have been -way- into anti-gay rhetoric over their political careers, well beyond the marriage issue. Remember most of these wanna-be log-cabiners have political careers spanning decades.

I'm sure there's more to it than just "well just because I fuck a dude on the side doesn't mean I have to support gay marriage!" There's definitely, at least for some of these politicians, some really virulent anti-gay shit in their public record.

Should be lulzy.

[Kuya]

While the hypocrisy thing is odd, the most important thing about this, as i've already said, is that this amounts to outing gay people because they oppose your cause. Talk about cannibalism.

[miokomioko]

It's amusing to me that, regardless of what side you're arguing for, the ones that are the most passionate and activistic tend to be the most narrow-minded as well. Arguing/disagreeing with someone about how they see a situation doesn't always mean they are they opposed in belief.

I, personally, think the whole anti-gay-marriage thing is utter bullshit and Proposition 8 was a huge disgrace. However, I have my own qualms with gay "culture" in itself and, ultimately, if such noise should even be made about what kind of genitals one likes to suck on. The entire gay community/lifestyle has more hypocritic (though subtle) characteristics than this one individual, however "traitorous" he may be considered.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I stick my cock in people's faces with the best of 'em - you are not the best of 'em.

Your ad hominems are just so...tired and, I dunno - out of nowhere? It's just nothing but sighs and eye-rolls over here. This isn't 5th grade, these are real life (forums) with consequences you take to the grave!

And here you are crying about them. If they were so tired why does it bother you enough to comment about it?

If it were anyone else you would move on and ignore them, yet something compels you let your bitch-tits loose and lactate all over the thread over little old me.

SORRY YOU'RE JEALOUS DUDE, LET'S GET BACK ON TOPIC.

[archibaldcrane]

If it were anyone else

Noone makes me cringe more when I see them in a topic besides you. Which is because you suck. Hard. And your shit is annoying and tired. And you haven't been around long enough for your shittiness to become quaint and adorable. Maybe it'll be funny in an ironic way in a few years, I just don't look forward to the interim.

[Sol-Blackguy]

I stick my cock in people's faces with the best of 'em - you are not the best of 'em.

Your ad hominems are just so...tired and, I dunno - out of nowhere? It's just nothing but sighs and eye-rolls over here. This isn't 5th grade, these are real life (forums) with consequences you take to the grave!

Internet, serious business?

On topic: This is the kind of stuff that needs to happen. Somewhere along the line these people sold out their lifestyles just to benefit as part of a mass. If the GOP is serious about fixing their problems then they need to move along with the times. Mike Spence couldn't even formulate a sentence when Chris Matthews asked him if he believed in evolution.

[archibaldcrane]

Talk about cannibalism.

Meh, the "gay community" doesn't claim 60 year old closeted dudes.

They're just seen as pathetic and worthy of scorn.

[Kohan]

It's amusing to me that, regardless of what side you're arguing for, the ones that are the most passionate and activistic tend to be the most narrow-minded as well. Arguing/disagreeing with someone about how they see a situation doesn't always mean they are they opposed in belief.

This is why I mentioned the idiocy of anti-female gay males, and man-hating lesbians. They're just as terrible as narrow-minded Democrats, who are equally as villainous as blockheaded Republicans, and so on.

The sort of "gay culture" I don't mind is what I see in Boy Town, which is people acting absolutely normal. You drive through, and you see billboards of men standing together, holding hands or one another, but the ads are otherwise perfectly ordinary. There's nothing flamboyant about them. The depicted individuals wear normal clothes, they advertise dating services, friendly hotels, and so on.

Likewise, I do thoroughly enjoy San Fran. Aside from the gay pride parades, it's a pretty standard-fare place. Everyone is just themselves, and that's the way it should be.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Noone makes me cringe more when I see them in a topic besides you. Which is because you suck. Hard. And your shit is annoying and tired. And you haven't been around long enough for your shittiness to become quaint and adorable. Maybe it'll be funny in an ironic way in a few years, I just don't look forward to the interim.

Ya, cue violins. If that's what happens then I'm doing my job. Thanks for the praise.

By the way, ad hominem is personal attacks in lieu of substantive argument on topic, I combine both when necessary. Get your vocabulary straight before you butcher it, dipshit. Welcome to the game, you just lost.


Again, let's get back on topic, BEFORE YOUR AD HOMINEM AGAINST ME GETS AD HOMONIM. LOL, GET IT?

[Kuya]

Backwards logic is BACKWARDS.

These guys crusade against gay marriage because they call homosexuality abbhorent, sinful, against god's will - and this is their argument for why marriage is a union between a man and a women.

Israel is a state and it's actions effect relations between several states in the region, Judaism is at once both a religious belief that may be adopted by a state, and a heritage dating back before the state officially existed.

Being a Jew against Israel is an ignorant argument, being a Jew against Judaism gives you more of a point, but doesn't make the point you want to get across for a confrontational argument because it makes no sense.

Not only do you not understand this issue, but the Israel example seems to be lost in you. Let me educate you. Within the context of the Israel debate, there is a strong association between Israel and Judaism because this relationship is mediated via Zionism. Some Jews consider Jews who don't support Israel to be fake Jews or traitors because there's a powerful association taking place.

Now to apply this excellent analogy to this issue, there is an association between gay identity and support for same sex marriage. Which has more to do with an efficient mobilizing of thought in favour of strengthening that association.

As for the first part, i don't quite understand how fighting the demonization of homosexuality via... demonizing homosexuality is going to work. The point seems to have gone over your head, but allow me to explain this thoroughly. Outing someone as gay has the intent of ruining one's career under the assumption that homosexuality is considered a social pariah that it's equivalent to saying someone cheats on their wife (and they might well have). I don't really care what a Republican who identifies as gay and his intentions are about, he can reconcile what he does in private with what he does in public on his own, but using the fact that accusations of homosexuality can ruin reputations and careers is only reaffirming that negative aspect of homosexuality. It's in effect the use of homosexuality as a weapon to get even with someone certain gay activist consider a traitor. That's counter productive.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

This is why I mentioned the idiocy of anti-female gay males, and man-hating lesbians. They're just as terrible as narrow-minded Democrats, who are equally as villainous as blockheaded Republicans, and so on.

The sort of "gay culture" I don't mind is what I see in Boy Town, which is people acting absolutely normal. You drive through, and you see billboards of men standing together, holding hands or one another, but the ads are otherwise perfectly ordinary. There's nothing flamboyant about them. The depicted individuals wear normal clothes, they advertise dating services, friendly hotels, and so on.

Likewise, I do thoroughly enjoy San Fran. Aside from the gay pride parades, it's a pretty standard-fare place. Everyone is just themselves, and that's the way it should be.

Sorry but overt heterosexuality is never discriminated against so, the "wrong" gay culture of flamboyance and such is pure BS. There isn't a right or wrong way to be gay. You should be allowed to be overtly sexual regardless of your sexual preference.

The "family values" gay train may exist for religious or adoption cases, but otherwise the real world is inherently real. An enforced perception does not make such the case for what actually is.

[archibaldcrane]

Ya, cue violins. If that's what happens then I'm doing my job. Thanks for the praise.

That's the problem, you manage to annoy me to no end even when we are on the same side of a discussion and you aren't even arguing with me.

If your "job" is to annoy everyone on all sides of an argument for sucking all over the place, congrats, you do win the game, every time.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Not only do you not understand this issue, but the Israel example seems to be lost in you. Let me educate you. Within the context of the Israel debate, there is a strong association between Israel and Judaism because this relationship is mediated via Zionism. Some Jews consider Jews who don't support Israel to be fake Jews or traitors because there's a powerful association taking place.

Now to apply this excellent analogy to this issue, there is an association between gay identity and support for same sex marriage. Which has more to do with an efficient mobilizing of thought in favour of strengthening that association.

As for the first part, i don't quite understand how fighting the demonization of homosexuality via... demonizing homosexuality is going to work. The point seems to have gone over your head, but allow me to explain this thoroughly. Outing someone as gay has the intent of ruining one's carrier under the assumption that homosexuality is considered that a social pariah that it's equivalent to saying someone cheats on their wife (and they might well have). I don't really care what a Republican who identifies as gay and his intentions are about, he can reconcile what he does in private with what he does in public on his own, but using the fact that accusations of homosexuality can ruin reputations and careers is only reaffirming that negative aspect of homosexuality. It's in effect the use of homosexuality as a weapon to get even with someone certain gay activist consider a traitor. That's counter productive.

No, I understand it quite clearly, I just happen to not agree with you as well as cleverly have proven you wrong. Your post makes no sense and has a complete lack of regard for the facts as such and requires little rebuttal except to say; "No, you're full of shit and are defending your post, not the argument."

[Kohan]

Sorry but overt heterosexuality is never discriminated against so, the "wrong" gay culture of flamboyance and such is pure BS. There isn't a right or wrong way to be gay. You should be allowed to be overtly sexual regardless of your sexual preference.

You appear to have missed out on the start of my statement. I do not personally have a problem with the gay pride parades, although my last comment could've been misconstrued in that way. The reason I provided the billboard example is to argue against the "gay culture" stigma, which generally expects people to be constantly wearing brightly-colored boas, leather teddies, and the like.

What I do take issue with are the gays who demonize heterosexuality, which I've mentioned twice within this thread. Claiming superiority is a moronic move, regardless of who does it.

[archibaldcrane]

That's counter productive.

If it removes long-standing anti-gay-issue politicians from office and frees up the seats for possible competition to gay-friendly politicians, it's politically productive.

Outing is mainly a weapon if people feel it reveals hypocrisy, and for many of these politicians, it will. It's not as much "oh my god he's gay - we can't have gays in office!" as much as it's "...dude you just spent a decade telling us how homosexual activity is a sin in the eyes of the lord, and you're fucking dudes? Really? What about your wife, that you're cheating on, with a dude? And your kids? Really? How could you do that to them? Jesus christ gtfo".

I know you can distinguish the difference Kuya.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

You appear to have missed out on the start of my statement. I do not personally have a problem with the gay pride parades, although my last comment could've been misconstrued in that way. The reason I provided the billboard example is to argue against the "gay culture" stigma, which generally expects people to be constantly wearing brightly-colored boas, leather teddies, and the like.

What I do take issue with are the gays who demonize heterosexuality, which I've mentioned twice within this thread. Claiming superiority is a moronic move, regardless of who does it.

Oh alright, I apologize for that.

I do think it's unfortunate of the "Village People" stigma, but I think it's everyones job in the push for gay rights to show the duplicity of sexuality on both teams instead of forcing the gay community into a box of domestication so they can be accepted for who they are.

But this is my "fringe liberal" idealism, I do understand that the public is more ignorant and manipulated than I'd like to accept and it may be a necessary measure and "lesser evil" situation.