MichaelRogers at BlogActive is claiming that he knows of a gay Republican Senator that he will out between tomorrow and his re-election. The following is the letter he wrote to the “closeted Republican Senator”:
Mr. Senator:Tomorrow you will be faced with a vote that may have the longest aftereffects of any other you have cast in your Senate career.
Tomorrow you will decide if your political position is worth more than doing what is right for others like you. For others like you, Mr. Senator, who engage in oral sex with other men. (Although, Mr. Senator, most of us don’t do in the bathrooms of Union Station!) Your fake marriage, by the way, will NOT protect you from the truth being told on this blog.
How does this blog decide who to report on? It’s simple. We report on hypocrites. In this case, hypocrites who vote against the gay and lesbian community while engaging in gay sex themselves*.
When you cast that vote, Mr. Senator, represent your own…it’s the least you could do.
Michael Rogers
blogACTIVE.com*While votes on many matters are considered, votes “FOR” either the Alito nomination and the Federal Marriage Amendment are enough to qualify legislators for reporting on this site.
Michael Rogers at BlogActive is gay himself and here I thought that gays wanted people to be tolerate of their lifestyle. Oh wait, that’s only if you’re a gay liberal. My bad, sorry.
A Tic In The Mind's Eye linked with Coretta Scott King Dies...and Moonbat Cries...
Conservative Culture linked with Gay Blogger Extortion of Black Bigots?
Myopic Zeal :: Gay Blogger Blackmails Senator on Alito Vote :: January :: 2006 linked with Myopic Zeal :: Gay Blogger Blackmails Senator on Alito Vote :: January :: 2006
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register to comment here.
2:49 am [ Quote ]
I think that most gays are very tolerant. What they are not tolerant of are those hypocrits that seek to define gays as second class citizens based on their own views of morality while they themselves are participating in the same lifestyle. Either you live by your morals or you don’t, and when you don’t the people that you affect have a right to throw it in your face. The issue is not about being gay, it’s about being a hypocrit.
It would be the same thing if a female politician worked to outlaw abortions while she went and had one herself.
7:54 am [ Quote ]
[...] Ian Schwartz responds: “Michael Rogers at BlogActive is gay himself and here I thought that gays wanted people to be tolerate of their lifestyle. Oh wait, that’s only if you’re a gay liberal. My bad, sorry. ” [...]
9:31 am [ Quote ]
I think that most gays are very tolerant.
-RedJeepRider
It’s not that gays are intolerant. It’s that LIBERALS are intolerant! To them a person can’t actually be black if they’re not a liberal. And nothing pisses them off like strong women who aren’t liberals (Coulter, Malkin).
9:58 am [ Quote ]
[...] (HT http://exposetheleft.com/2006/01/31/gayrepublican/) If you are against being homosexual you are homophobic. If you are homosexual but in the ‘closet’ then others tread the perilous passage as pioneers for those not brave enough. [...]
10:18 am [ Quote ]
This is a false analogy. No Republican is suggesting homosexuality be outlawed. A closer analogy would be being a black person and not agreeing with gov’t imposed affirmative action.
I think I’m in the Republican majority when I say that no one cares if you want to be gay and live a gay lifestyle. We just don’t think you should be given extra rights because of that decision.
The fact that a Republican Senator is gay would have no effect on my vote, provided he did not start advocating special rights for homosexuals.
Republicans are for equal rights for all, and have been so ever since Republicans along with the religious right began the fight to end slavery. Democrats believe special interest groups (gays, minorities, etc.) need special rights in order to live in America. That does nothing but further divisiveness, increase the ‘entitlement’ mentality, and spread bigotry.
10:38 am [ Quote ]
RedJeepRider, wrong. Republicans are not intolerant of gays, it is liberals who are intolerant. Remember the Barney Frank scandal? Liberals were protecting him because he was one of them. Believe me, if this was a Democrat, liberal or conservative, this wouldn’t happen.
11:50 am [ Quote ]
Coretta Scott King Dies…and Moonbat Cries…
File under: Civil rights and “just plain wrong”!...
12:45 pm [ Quote ]
Kevin Said:
I think I’m in the Republican majority when I say that no one cares if you want to be gay and live a gay lifestyle. We just don’t think you should be given extra rights because of that decision…
How is the right to legally marry a human being of consenting age that you love an “extra right?” 39 years ago, blacks weren’t afforded the “extra rights” to marry whites, how is this any different?
1:06 pm [ Quote ]
To me, examples of real hypocrisy, disingenuousness, and/or duplicity include a) folks obstructing public school reform, higher standards, and/or student, teacher, and parental responsibility and accountability, while sending their own children to private and parochial ones, b) folks decrying “tax cuts for the rich”, while hiring $500/hour tax attorneys to make sure they pay as little as possible, c) folks claiming they don’t drive an SUV, while speaking in front of so-called “environmental” groups, but crowing about their multiple SUVs, while speaking in front of the UAW, d) folks claiming that prurient, obscene, and scatological language, movies, and so-called “art” and “humor” don’t have any effect on people, despite advertisers paying $2.4 million per 30-second Super Bowl commercial, all in the name, I suppose, of NOT influencing others, and e) folks claiming to be open-minded, tolerant, and accepting, while establishing Orwellian, politically-correct, and thought-controlled policies in K-higher academia. I have about 50 others, but you get the point.
Additionally, most GLBT practitioners, advocates, and apologists claim they are against the toleration, acceptance, tacit approval, embracement, celebration, and/or legalization of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, bigamy, polygamy, and prostitution. I have repeatedly heard, “Just because I’m for homosexual so-called ‘marriage’ doesn’t mean I’m for deviant, debased, degrading, debauched, and dissolute fill-in-the-blank relationships”.
At least, so-called “homophobic, self-righteous, religious zealots” are logically and ethically consistent. They believe, in good-faith, that civil unions and domestic partnerships, those de facto “marriage” wolves in so-called “non-marriage” sheep’s clothing, as well as homosexual so-called “marriage”, to be both spiritually immoral and secularly unethical. To them, marriage is to be between one man and one woman, and the state should not be officially sanctioning any other type of relationship.
On the other hand, most self-proclaimed homosexuals I’ve interacted with claim they are willing to so-call “discriminate against” others based upon number (bigamy and polygamy), relationship (incest), age (pedophilia), entity (bestiality), and even remuneration (prostitution). I have been faced with outright indignation when I’ve postulated that society’s so-called “legalization” of homosexual so-called “marriage” MUST logically and ethically lead to ALL other consensual behaviors being similarly recognized. I’ve even had a couple of self-professed members of HRC claim they aren’t for legalized bigamy or polygamy, despite supposedly working on behalf of bisexuals, which, of logical and ethical necessity, means they MUST be for both bigamy and polygamy.
Just think about the following examples. Since my mother and wife have both passed away, why shouldn’t my father and I be able to enjoy the so-called “benefits” a recognized civil union, domestic partnership, or incestuous so-called “marriage” would so-call “provide”? Why so-call “discriminate” against our so-called “civil and human rights”? We’re in a life-long, committed, and faithful relationship and I doubt anyone wishes for “big brother” to violate our privacy in order to verify that we’ve, in fact, “consummated” our relationship?
Of course, I can’t think of any so-called “benefits”, besides, perhaps, discounts in various insurance rates, that my father and I can’t enjoy via legally-binding documents, like durable power-of-attorney and last will-and-testament, but why so-call “discriminate against” mutually-consenting practitioners of incest, while not allowing the same so-called “discrimination against” homosexuals.
The same logically and ethically consistent, although also spiritually immoral and secularly unethical, arguments can be made for a) the “mature-beyond-his-years” 10-year-old wishing to copulate with his hot, horny, and nymphomaniacal 21-year-old student teacher, b) the female pet owner wishing to so-call “satisfy” the so-called “natural” needs and desires of the German Shepherd she so-call “loves” so very much, when “Fido” begins furiously “humping” her leg, and c) the parents that wish to freely express their so-called “love” for their children in the most “intimate” way possible. After all, isn’t this simply “satisfying” the so-called “natural” Oedipal and Electral “attachments” boys and girls initially feel for their mothers and fathers? Perhaps by “releasing” this “tension”, a child’s hostile or tense feelings toward the parent of the same sex might even be reduced and this “physicality” could serve to bring the family closer together … both figuratively and literally?
Of course, I am not advocating or apologizing for these despicable, yet mutually-consented-to and freely-chosen, examples. I am simply attempting to make a few points. First, that homosexuality was regarded in as unfavorable a light, less than a couple of decades ago and as it still SHOULD be today, that most people CURRENTLY regard incest, bigamy, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, and prostitution. These can be, after all, behaviors that are so-called “freely entered into” and so-call “don’t hurt anybody”, but don’t get me started on socio-emotional development, or lack thereof, and per capita medical R & D spending on 99.99%-preventable diseases, like HIV/AIDS, gonorrhea, and syphilis, at the expense of non-behavior-preventable ones, like lupus, muscular dystrophy, and multiple sclerosis.
Second, that the GLBT lobbies and activists seem to publicly claim they are not “for” these other insidious and deleterious attitudes and behaviors, but, within their own “closets”, give both implicit and covert aid-and-comfort to these deviants (factual, not so-called “judgmental”, observation), especially when they realize they MUST do so – IF they are to retain even a smidgeon of so-called intellectual honesty, logical consistency, and ethical integrity.
After all, if sexual intercourse between two men is to be deemed “okie-dokie”, and isn’t this what gay relationships are really all about, as one can truly “love” another man in all the myriad ways possible except erotically, e.g., father-son love, brother-brother love, friend-friend love, student-teacher love, neighbor-neighbor love, etc., why not also deem as “okie-dokie” the insertion of an animal penis into a human vagina, e.g., especially since I’ve seen so many GLBT apologists claim that since, e.g., some Spheniscus dermersi seem to demonstrate homosexual behavior, it must be “okie-dokie” for Homo sapiens, too? Of course, try to apply a Darwinian “survival of the fittest” test to human beings, politics, economics, and philosophy and liberal Leftists will scream, “We are not animals!”
Third, it’s very possible for someone to be “against” certain spiritually immoral and secularly unethical attitudes and behaviors, while not being infallible, perfect, and God-like “practitioners of virtue”. I am sure that many have been, are, and will be past, present, and future drug addicts, alcoholics, kleptomaniacs, nymphomaniacs, serial rapists, mass murderers, pathological liars, spouse and child abusers, abortioners and abortionees, adulterers, philanderers, promiscuous fornicators, and practitioners of homosexuality, bisexuality, incest, bestiality, and pedophilia.
This doesn’t mean we should, as either individuals or society-at-large”, “tolerate, accept, tacitly approve, embrace, celebrate, and/or legalize” these actions, no matter how much these “desires, feelings, and motivations” may have been influenced by “nature” and/or “nurture”. It also doesn’t mean that a recovering alcoholic shouldn’t be able to speak out on behalf of MADD, that Kirstie Alley shouldn’t be able to encourage healthy weight loss, or that a US Senator, if true, shouldn’t be able to speak out against oral sodomy, while fighting against his own sinful, imperfect, and “human, all too human” desires and demons, which, in this case, as well as many others, run contrary to both the Laws of God and Nature.
FWIW, I find many GLBT lifestyle and agenda defenders to be very close-minded, very selfish, very totalitarian-in-nature, and having strong tendencies to proactively practice Christophobia, misoChristism, and/or hypoChristic anti-Biblicism. They seem to desire special treatment, proclaim that anyone that disagrees with them must first be so-called “perfect” in order to actually voice a contrarian opinion, deliberately refuse to acknowledge the God-given ability to “hate the sin”, while “loving the person”, and will stoop to just about anything to so-call “justify” their quite perceptible mental retardation, developmental disability, moral devolution, and/or ethical destitution.
In conclusion, while I do my good-faith, duly-diligent, and Biblically-commanded best to “love my neighbor as myself”, comprehend that all sins are equally wrong in the eyes of Almighty God, and will joyously forgive my brother seventy times seven WHEN he sincerely acknowledges his sin, genuinely seeks redemption, and does his Holy Spirit-assisted best to sin no more, I absolutely refuse to sit idly by and not rebuke others when they attempt to force their sinful, immoral, amoral, unethical, unGodly, unrighteous, and just plain wrong lifestyle and agenda down my very unwilling throat. After all, our Founding Fathers originally intended building this nation upon the rock-solid foundation of Judeo-Christian principles, traditional morality, and family values, not upon the Code of Conduct of Sodom and Gomorrah.
1:11 pm [ Quote ]
I have no right to marry another man. Why should a gay man should not be given the “extra right” to do it, if I can’t?
Of course, any two homosexuals can live together and call themselves married if they want to. Heck they can call themselves king and queen for that matter. They just can’t force Americans to accept a new definition of the word “marriage”.
I am not aware of the laws 39 years ago about interracial marriage. Was there a law banning the practice? If there was, I wonder who repealed it (I would guess Republicans). It clearly is unconstitutional because of the equal protection clause. Any single man can marry any single woman (and vice-versa of course).
1:39 pm [ Quote ]
khaustic:
So, should incestuous and bisexual “human beings of consenting age” be allowed to “marry”, too?
Should bisexuals be allowed to enter into state-sanctioned bigamous and polygamous relationships?
Since my mother and wife have both passed away, should my father and I be allowed to get “married”?
Why continue to so-call “discriminate” based upon age and entity, too?
Why can’t the “mature-beyond-his-years” 10-year-old freely copulate with his hot, horny, and nymphomaniacal 21-year-old student teacher, if they’re both willing and able?
Why can’t the dog lover literally “screw the pooch” if they “love” each other, use protection, and it’s consensual?
After all, if you are to remain logically consistent, don’t you also have to be “for” consensual incest, pedophilia, bigamy, polygamy, bestiality, and prostitution?
Finally, comparing skin color, which isn’t chosen, with homosexual activity, which is, is comparing apples and oranges.
3:03 pm [ Quote ]
There’s always the chance that this guy is just blowing smoke out his prolapsed rectum. The irrational rage filled fringe dwellers are on the cusp of full blown madness over Alito’s cloture vote and now his confirmation. It’s grain of salt time. Ignore this moonbat.
3:32 pm [ Quote ]
“I have no right to marry another man. Why should a gay man should not be given the “extra right? to do it, if I can’t?”
Well, if gays are allowed to marry another man, than you will also have that right. And sure, they can call themselves married and they can live together for years and years but should one of them get into an accident and into critical condition at the ER, their partner would not be allowed to visit. Think about that. Is that an “extra right”?
“After all, if sexual intercourse between two men is to be deemed “okie-dokie?, and isn’t this what gay relationships are really all about, as one can truly “love? another man in all the myriad ways possible except erotically, e.g., father-son love, brother-brother love, friend-friend love, student-teacher love, neighbor-neighbor love, etc., why not also deem as “okie-dokie? the insertion of an animal penis into a human vagina”
This is fear mongering. Nobody is out calling for the legalization of human-animal sex. This has nothing do with the issue. Absolutely nothing.
5:10 pm [ Quote ]
I was unaware that they could not visit. But if you have to be related to visit people in the hospital, then granting the boyfriend a “special” privilege to bypass that rule would indeed be an “extra right”. I find the scenario dubious though, since I was allowed to see a friend in the ER when she got in a car accident and was about to be rushed to surgery.
Ah, I get it therobot. You think a new right should be created, being that all men are legally allowed to marry other men (and women can marry women)! I think that sounds like a great idea.
How do we go about getting this new right? I know, let’s vote on it! That’s how we got all of our other rights.
Or, we could find a guy who happens to be a judge, and have him create a law by fiat. Which way is the democratic way?
It’s not fear mongering, it’s just plain fear. I don’t want to put words in Mr. Smith’s mouth, but I think what he was saying is that it’s the beginning of a slippery slope. 50 years ago, the idea of gay marriage would have been seen as absurd. Now it is acceptable to quite a lot of people.
Maybe in 10 years, a man and two women who truly love each other will want to get married using the same arguments gays are using now. Who are we to decide what marriage means? Maybe, just maybe, a guy in 2050 who really loves his dog platonically, wants to get married to it, not for sick desires, but because he wants the world to know that he loves his dog and the feeling is returned. Why should we not allow that?
So when you say,”Nobody is out calling for the legalization of human-animal sex”, you should really end the sentence with “, yet.”
6:34 am [ Quote ]
Maybe not animal “sex” specifically, but remember the recent story about a British woman who married a dolphin?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html
Should she not have had the right to do so?
11:27 am [ Quote ]
There’s a lot of talk about “special rights.” How does that give gays special rights? ANYONE can designate someone of the same sex as his/her partner. All this would do is expand rights to allow more consenting adults to enter into a legal recognized commitment to each other. How does this threaten anyone?
11:56 am [ Quote ]
Hm, I write a five-page rebuttal and it won’t let me post. Lovely.
11:57 am [ Quote ]
Well, since nobody seems to have actually read my post, I’ll reiterate: “How is the right to legally marry a human being of consenting age that you love an “extra right??”
At the time I was typing this post, I had originally used the words, “How is the right to marry one that you love an ‘extra right?’” Remembering where I was posting, I decided to be very careful with my wording. “Otherwise,” I thought to myself, “these people will gleefully misinterpret my question and respond with such a glut of inane, toxic, off-topic answers that I’ll simply be overwhelmed by their stupidity and be forced to cede my point.” I was very sure that in the re-wording of my sentence to “a human being of consenting age,” that there was no possible way my point could be skewed or misunderstood. Apparently, yet again, I misunderestimated the Right.
11:59 am [ Quote ]
Furthermore, those who use Leviticus as your source for being against homosexuality, do you follow all the other prohibitions about planting two seeds in field, how to sacrifice animals and fling their blood about, how to treat slaves etc.?
12:00 pm [ Quote ]
I’ve been waiting for that answer too, khaustic.
12:00 pm [ Quote ]
So… No, michaelwsmith, incest should not be state-sponsored. Nor should anything else you mentioned. This is where the famous Neo-con logic is infamous for falling apart. Comparing the joining of two (sing it with me now), “Human Beings of Consenting Age,” with the joining of an adult and a child, two related adults, an adult and an animal, or three or more adults is, as you said yourself, “comparing apples and oranges.” Let’s see why, shall we?
Pedophilia: Psychologically and in many cases physically destructive to the children involved. Children have not yet developed higher reasoning or communication skills, or even personalities, that would allow them to make informed decisions as to whom they love and do not love.
Incest: Ditto if children are involved. With two adults, you get the added bonus of a nice shallow gene pool for your descendants to swim in. Additionally, the majority of incest is forced, bringing rape into the equation.
Beastiality: Let’s see… oh, yes. Different species. And if that’s not enough for you, science tells us that animals lack higher reason and communication skills, thus, cannot “consent” in the legal sense.
Polygamy: Polygamy just plain doesn’t work. The only culture that even practices it regularly is the Todo tribe of India, and for them, it’s more about community than marriage. Christian and Mormon polygamist relationships are typically abusive, and though polygamy is still practiced (primarily in Western African Muslim states and Saudi Arabia and the UAE), it’s typically only practiced by powerful members of society where the women are more status symbols than wives. Besides, no one’s good enough to do the taxes for a four-member marriage.
12:01 pm [ Quote ]
Basically, the only reason you even named any of these deviant sexual behaviors is just that: you consider homosexuality to be a deviant sexual behavior, and from your first post, I’m guessing that attitude is based on your religion. Nearly every argument I’ve ever heard against homosexual marriage is based quite firmly in religion. “The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman, and the religious majority in this country is Christian, so homosexual marriage shouldn’t be allowed.” seems to be the general sentiment. But last time I checked, we were a Democracy, not a Theocracy. Separation of Church and State is a founding tenet of this country even if, as you say, “our Founding Fathers originally intended building this nation upon the rock-solid foundation of Judeo-Christian principles, traditional morality, and family values.” And if you don’t believe me, check the Constitution, you’ll find it there. Trust me. Oh, and one more thing? You claim, “I’ve even had a couple of self-professed members of HRC claim they aren’t for legalized bigamy or polygamy, despite supposedly working on behalf of bisexuals, which, of logical and ethical necessity, means they MUST be for both bigamy and polygamy.” This is just idiotic. Last time I checked, bisexuality was defined as “Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of either sex,” NOT “Someone who wants to be married to both a member of the same sex and a member of the opposite sex at the same time.” Nice job twisting the definition of the word, though. If I hadn’t actually been reading what you said (something all of you should try), I would’ve missed that.
12:01 pm [ Quote ]
Ok, moving on… Kevin… You said, “50 years ago, the idea of gay marriage would have been seen as absurd.” Well, look at America in the Fifties. Of course it would’ve been seen as ridiculous. The social norms at the time reflected around a mythological ideal of barefoot and pregnant women and the strong American Businessman. That doesn’t mean homosexuality never occurred before that point. There’s speculation that gay marriage occurred as far back as 4,500 years ago. In Zhou period China, a famous stories tells of Wang Zhongxian and Pan Zhang, who “fell in love at first sight and were as affectionate as husband and wife, sharing the same coverlet and pillow with unbounded intimacy for one another.” Additionally, Han period historians Sima Qian and Ban Gu recorded the open bisexuality of ten Han Emperors; Gao, Hui, Wen, Jing, Wu, Zhao, Xuan, Yuan, Cheng, and Ai. Chinese disdain for homosexuality was not introduced until the arrival of Jesuit priests in the 18th and 19th centuries. Look at any pre-Hellenistic Greek art and you’ll be hard-pressed not to find a depiction of homosexual union. In Russia, laws against homosexuality (and even then, specifically the act of anal intercourse) didn’t appear until the 16th century. Post-WWI Europe shows us histories such as that of King James I of England and VI of Scotland, who was so open about his homosexuality, he was called Queen James by his subjects (though England was in such a religious fervor during his time that “The Act of 1553” had made “buggery” illegal.
12:04 pm [ Quote ]
Ok class, so the lesson for today is… Read what someone writes and make sure you understand it before immediately responding with rhetoric, mmk?
12:06 pm [ Quote ]
Sorry that was in so many posts. Wouldn’t let me post all of it at once (probably because I was missing an em tag.
1:03 pm [ Quote ]
Deviant: Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.
Considering it’s 10% or less of the population, technically, that is a deviation from the norm.