Gingrich To Gay Man: Vote For Obama

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Wait, did any of you even bother to read his exact words?

He said he doesn't want to get elected based on the issue of same sex marriage and if you think that is an important issue today than vote for Obama.

How can ANYONE say that same-sex marriage is an important issue in today's world when compared to everything else a President has to deal with?

Newt has priorities. Someones marriage isn't one of them.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,758
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Wait, did any of you even bother to read his exact words?

He said he doesn't want to get elected based on the issue of same sex marriage and if you think that is an important issue today than vote for Obama.

How can ANYONE say that same-sex marriage is an important issue in today's world when compared to everything else a President has to deal with?

Newt has priorities. Someones marriage isn't one of them.
I can say it is an important issue. It's my LIFE we're talking about. It's easy for you to say it's not important when you can get married and divorced as many times as you like.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,851
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Wait, did any of you even bother to read his exact words?

He said he doesn't want to get elected based on the issue of same sex marriage and if you think that is an important issue today than vote for Obama.

How can ANYONE say that same-sex marriage is an important issue in today's world when compared to everything else a President has to deal with?

Newt has priorities. Someones marriage isn't one of them.
And yet when he was Speaker and his priorities should have been the matter of governing he was more focused on Bill Clinton's sexual activities. So it would seem government was third on his list..condemning Clinton's affair was first,his own affair was second, all else came after.

They also say that all politics is local so to those affected by the issue of same sex marriage it is important. Would you have said to African Americans in the 60s to not be concerned about how a candidate would approach matters of equality because of "more important issues'?
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I can say it is an important issue. It's my LIFE we're talking about. It's easy for you to say it's not important when you can get married and divorced as many times as you like.

So, war, the economy, starvation, etc should be secondary because you are unhappy? Talk about selfish....
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
And yet when he was Speaker and his priorities should have been the matter of governing he was more focused on Bill Clinton's sexual activities. So it would seem government was third on his list..condemning Clinton's affair was first,his own affair was second, all else came after.

They also say that all politics is local so to those affected by the issue of same sex marriage it is important. Would you have said to African Americans in the 60s to not be concerned about how a candidate would approach matters of equality because of "more important issues'?

Something like that fell under his responsibilities as speaker of the house. Not to mention it could have been a priority then. Mid 90s, there were no wars, the economy was fine. There may have been nothing better to focus on.

The Civil Rights movement is significantly overblown on how widespread it actually was.
 

B_Nick8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Posts
11,403
Media
0
Likes
298
Points
208
Location
New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
Wait, did any of you even bother to read his exact words?

He said he doesn't want to get elected based on the issue of same sex marriage and if you think that is an important issue today than vote for Obama.

How can ANYONE say that same-sex marriage is an important issue in today's world when compared to everything else a President has to deal with?

Newt has priorities. Someones marriage isn't one of them.

God knows he doesn't want his marriage(s) to be. :rolleyes:
 

g_whiz

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Posts
270
Media
8
Likes
14
Points
163
Location
Raleigh NC
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
So, war, the economy, starvation, etc should be secondary because you are unhappy? Talk about selfish....

Yeah, equality is one of those things people are selfish for expecting in a supposedly egalitarian society... do you listen to yourself talk? In a democracy people aren't supposed to have to make a case for why they should have rights their fellow Americans have. That speaks to civil rights of many sub-groups. Expecting this isn't "selfish" its part of being a citizen. I happen to think the government isn't so tiny that it can't effectively handle starvation, war, economy and allowing its own people NOT to be actively discriminated against.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,851
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Something like that fell under his responsibilities as speaker of the house. Not to mention it could have been a priority then. Mid 90s, there were no wars, the economy was fine. There may have been nothing better to focus on.

The Civil Rights movement is significantly overblown on how widespread it actually was.
You are officially the biggest moron I've come across . If you were on the receiving end of the hatred and discrimination that African-Americans endured I'll bet you'd be singing a different song.
How could someone actually feel that it was no big deal that an entire group of people were treated as less than human? You can't actually think that it was nothing major when blacks were being lynched for just trying to register to vote? Do you see anything wrong when churches were bombed and little girls killed just because some white people didn't want to see blacks being treated as their equals? The injustices weren't isolated instances of bigotry. It was a systematic process that was supported by those in power who were supposed to safeguard the interests of all.

Newt only pursued Clinton because he wanted to score points with the family values voters( and perhaps also to distract from his own affairs). As I recall we had some problems at that time regarding healthcare and the time and money spent chasing after a spot on a dress could have been put to better use.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Yeah, equality is one of those things people are selfish for expecting in a supposedly egalitarian society... do you listen to yourself talk? In a democracy people aren't supposed to have to make a case for why they should have rights their fellow Americans have. That speaks to civil rights of many sub-groups. Expecting this isn't "selfish" its part of being a citizen. I happen to think the government isn't so tiny that it can't effectively handle starvation, war, economy and allowing its own people NOT to be actively discriminated against.

Except for one HUGE thing. The law is equal. No man can marry another man and no woman can marry another woman. No one, regardless of sexual preference, can marry someone of the same sex.

It has nothing to do with equality. It has nothing to do with equal rights. It would be a completely new right, that all people could enjoy. It would be unconstitutional to have a law that says you have to be homosexual to marry someone of the same sex.

And one cool thing about discrimination. Who you have sex with, is in fact a choice (Well it is 50% your choice the other person has to be a consenting individual as well) and if someone doesn't like that, they are well within their rights.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,758
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Except for one HUGE thing. The law is equal. No man can marry another man and no woman can marry another woman. No one, regardless of sexual preference, can marry someone of the same sex.

It has nothing to do with equality. It has nothing to do with equal rights. It would be a completely new right, that all people could enjoy. It would be unconstitutional to have a law that says you have to be homosexual to marry someone of the same sex.

And one cool thing about discrimination. Who you have sex with, is in fact a choice (Well it is 50% your choice the other person has to be a consenting individual as well) and if someone doesn't like that, they are well within their rights.
First you're wrong. I AM legally married to my Husband. Want to see my marriage certificate? It has EVERYTHING to do with equality. Can you please show me the citation in the Constitution where it says marriage must be between a man and a woman? And for the record, when I married my Husband in Massachusetts, no one asked me if I was a homosexual.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,851
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Except for one HUGE thing. The law is equal. No man can marry another man and no woman can marry another woman. No one, regardless of sexual preference, can marry someone of the same sex.

It has nothing to do with equality. It has nothing to do with equal rights. It would be a completely new right, that all people could enjoy. It would be unconstitutional to have a law that says you have to be homosexual to marry someone of the same sex.

And one cool thing about discrimination. Who you have sex with, is in fact a choice (Well it is 50% your choice the other person has to be a consenting individual as well) and if someone doesn't like that, they are well within their rights.
After your idiotic remarks about the Civil Rights movement in the 50s and 60s I thought that was as lame as anyone can get but now you find a way to keep digging deeper. The law is not equal. The law caters to heterosexuals. It says that any consenting male can marry any consenting female. The law prevents homosexuals from marrying the consenting same sex partner of their choice. For the law to be equal it would state that ANY two consenting adults, regardless of gender, can marry. Any reasoning individual with an IQ over 100 knows this.
Your recent statements are either proof that you are really extremely ignorant or that you are just trolling this board either way I'm through with you.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You are officially the biggest moron I've come across . If you were on the receiving end of the hatred and discrimination that African-Americans endured I'll bet you'd be singing a different song.
How could someone actually feel that it was no big deal that an entire group of people were treated as less than human? You can't actually think that it was nothing major when blacks were being lynched for just trying to register to vote? Do you see anything wrong when churches were bombed and little girls killed just because some white people didn't want to see blacks being treated as their equals? The injustices weren't isolated instances of bigotry. It was a systematic process that was supported by those in power who were supposed to safeguard the interests of all.

Newt only pursued Clinton because he wanted to score points with the family values voters( and perhaps also to distract from his own affairs). As I recall we had some problems at that time regarding healthcare and the time and money spent chasing after a spot on a dress could have been put to better use.

As a white male, go to a country that isn't filled with white people. You will experience it very quickly. It isn't a difficult thing to come across in the world.

But the Civil Rights movement in the 60's, well it wasn't as big as our text books make it out to be. Many picture millions marching in the streets of every major city. Well it just didn't happen like that. The marches, when they did happen, weren't that large. It wasn't happening all over the country, because in the most parts of the country there wasn't that big of an issue. Those things you mentioned simply weren't happening as frequently as people perceive, they weren't even happening that often in places where they happened. At least not anymore than other types of crime. That is one of the reason local law enforcement never took a huge interest in them. For every violent act of racism, there were a 100 or more violent crimes that weren't race related.

That whole era has so many misconceptions it isn't even funny. In 1976 as we were pulling out of Vietnam (5 years after the protests stopped) the War still had a 40% approval rating. But if you believe the books you would think 100% of people disproved it and they were all out getting high and having sex at rock concerts. When in reality, that was such a small percent of the population doing that and those that weren't partaking in it, just didn't care.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
After your idiotic remarks about the Civil Rights movement in the 50s and 60s I thought that was as lame as anyone can get but now you find a way to keep digging deeper. The law is not equal. The law caters to heterosexuals. It says that any consenting male can marry any consenting female. The law prevents homosexuals from marrying the consenting same sex partner of their choice. For the law to be equal it would state that ANY two consenting adults, regardless of gender, can marry. Any reasoning individual with an IQ over 100 knows this.
Your recent statements are either proof that you are really extremely ignorant or that you are just trolling this board either way I'm through with you.

Well, someone failed logic 101.

Law does not take in someones feelings. It cannot account for them. The law doesn't care what race or sex you are. It doesn't care who you like to have sex with. It must be equally to all.

The law doesn't just deny homosexuals from marrying someone of the same sex, it also denies heterosexuals from marrying someone of the same sex. It applies to both equally. And if they changed the law, it would once again have to apply equally to all. Meaning, both homosexuals and heterosexuals would be allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

It isn't an equal rights issue, it is a new right. Anyone with an IQ over 100 would realize that....
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,851
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
As a white male, go to a country that isn't filled with white people. You will experience it very quickly. It isn't a difficult thing to come across in the world.

But the Civil Rights movement in the 60's, well it wasn't as big as our text books make it out to be. Many picture millions marching in the streets of every major city. Well it just didn't happen like that. The marches, when they did happen, weren't that large. It wasn't happening all over the country, because in the most parts of the country there wasn't that big of an issue. Those things you mentioned simply weren't happening as frequently as people perceive, they weren't even happening that often in places where they happened. At least not anymore than other types of crime. That is one of the reason local law enforcement never took a huge interest in them. For every violent act of racism, there were a 100 or more violent crimes that weren't race related.

That whole era has so many misconceptions it isn't even funny. In 1976 as we were pulling out of Vietnam (5 years after the protests stopped) the War still had a 40% approval rating. But if you believe the books you would think 100% of people disproved it and they were all out getting high and having sex at rock concerts. When in reality, that was such a small percent of the population doing that and those that weren't partaking in it, just didn't care.
Why don't you try talking to some who had to suffer through the discrimination that you claim was no big deal. It was more prevalent than you claim. It wasn't an isolated incident. It wasn't a few lunch counters, buses, schools, hotels, water fountains, or restrooms that blacks couldn't use throughout the South, it was all of them. The people who discriminated had the full support of their state governments. What you also fail to understand is that it doesn't matter if it only was a few isolated incidents because it was still wrong and went against the Constitution which guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans. You are speaking as a white male and attempting to tell me, an African- American, that the Civil Rights struggle wasn't necessary. Long after that era had passed I still encountered people who couldn't accept that those days were gone. You are still wet behind the ears. Hopefully in time you will see that the world is different than the rosy "Happy Days" and " Andy Griffith Show" one you imagined it to be.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,851
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Well, someone failed logic 101.

Law does not take in someones feelings. It cannot account for them. The law doesn't care what race or sex you are. It doesn't care who you like to have sex with. It must be equally to all.

The law doesn't just deny homosexuals from marrying someone of the same sex, it also denies heterosexuals from marrying someone of the same sex. It applies to both equally. And if they changed the law, it would once again have to apply equally to all. Meaning, both homosexuals and heterosexuals would be allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

It isn't an equal rights issue, it is a new right. Anyone with an IQ over 100 would realize that....
If you passed any Logic course it must be because you were home schooled:rolleyes:.
For the law to be equal it would state that ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS COULD MARRY. If they are heterosexual and choose to marry someone of the same sex they could. By stating that only men could marry women it discriminates against the homosexual community so the current law is not equal because only one group is negatively affected by it.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Why don't you try talking to some who had to suffer through the discrimination that you claim was no big deal. It was more prevalent than you claim. It wasn't an isolated incident. It wasn't a few lunch counters, buses, schools, hotels, water fountains, or restrooms that blacks couldn't use throughout the South, it was all of them. The people who discriminated had the full support of their state governments. What you also fail to understand is that it doesn't matter if it only was a few isolated incidents because it was still wrong and went against the Constitution which guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans. You are speaking as a white male and attempting to tell me, an African- American, that the Civil Rights struggle wasn't necessary. Long after that era had passed I still encountered people who couldn't accept that those days were gone. You are still wet behind the ears. Hopefully in time you will see that the world is different than the rosy "Happy Days" and " Andy Griffith Show" one you imagined it to be.

For one, where did I say I was white? And Two, where did I say it was unnecessary and that violence against blacks was right?

Typical liberal debating tactics. Don't like what they say? RACIST!

When compared to regular ole every day crimes of a similar nature, there were very few.

The Tuskegee institute (Dare you claim them to be Racist as well?) estimates 3,446 blacks were lynched from 1882 to 1968. That is about 40 per year. By comparison, there were about 5,000 to 20,000 murders during each of those same years. In the whole scheme of violent crimes, they were not that prevalent.

As for segregation laws. Yes, some states did have those. Not many had full laws outlining as you described and many laws were removed in the early to mid 1900s. So yes, there were segregation laws, which were completely illegal.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Guys, I wouldn't worry much about Jingoist. If he continues to engage, despite having hidden out with only 72 posts in almost 2 1/2 years, he'll soon enough be banned for the racist homophobe he's showing himself to be.

Racists and homophobe? Please back up your statements.