Bush Campaign Chief and Former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman: I'm Gay

[mook]

(My apologies to anyone who could interpret my above post with lumping homosexuality in with "unnatural relations" like incest. It sickens me that people still think that way.)

 

[mook]

Where exactly in that passage does it say that Lot did NOT sin?

LMFAO! So a guy bangs his daughters and produces well known and well-thought-of grandchildren from the act (and apparently can't even remember doing it because he was so hammered). And it's never once condemned in the Bible. But that's ok, because it's also never explicitly endorsed?

Anyway, Brian says, "There isn't one instance in the Bible of homosexuality, sexual immorality, "unnatural relations", "indecents acts of perversion", etc. that is not labeled a sin. Not one." This is clearly a pretty big exception. It's the first one that came to my mind. I could probably dig up some more if I wanted to waste my time on it.

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

LMFAO! So a guy bangs his daughters and produces well known and well-thought-of grandchildren from the act (and apparently can't even remember doing it because he was so hammered). And it's never once condemned in the Bible. But that's ok, because it's also never explicitly endorsed?

Anyway, Brian says, "There isn't one instance in the Bible of homosexuality, sexual immorality, "unnatural relations", "indecents acts of perversion", etc. that is not labeled a sin. Not one." This is clearly a pretty big exception. It's the first one that came to my mind. I could probably dig up some more if I wanted to waste my time on it.

Deuteronomy 23:3

3An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

Looks like they were punished weren't they?

 

[mook]

Deuteronomy 23:3


Looks like they were punished weren't they?

Awesome! That'll teach those treacherous sperm and ova (and all the future offspring it generated) to sin against God!

 

[maxiep]

I've heard of them, never met one.

A groomsman at my wedding is one. In fact, he ran for the Oregon State Senate fully supported by the GOP (he lost, however). Therefore, I know quite a few of them.

What would you put their percentage at in the Republican party? I'm going to make a conservative guess and put it at >1%.

No clue. My point stands, however. There are plenty of gay people who believe in the platform of the Republican Party more than the Democratic Party.

Why do you think every clearly gay Republican elected official chooses to stay in the closet?

Probably for the same reasons clearly pro-gun, pro-life, anti-gay Democrats choose to emphasize other facets of their record.

Why do those same elected officials tend to take such strident stances in their voting and rhetoric against the issues that would seem to adversely affect them personally?

Link? For example, I suspect Sen. Lindsay Graham (R, SC) is gay. However, he doesn't take any strident stances on gay marriage. Again, the point is that your sexuality doesn't define who you are. You can disagree with a political party on a major issue and still be a member of that party.

and these days besides acquiring power, what is the political philosophy of the Republican party? It sure as hell isn't reducing spending/gov't as evidenced by W's terms.

STOMP

I'm not a Republican so you'll have to ask someone else who is.

 

[maxiep]

you're joking right? mmmmmerrrr okay

STOMP

I think it's a valid comparison. There are clearly Republicans that are anti-gay, but they are disproportionately covered in the media. My guess is the vast majority of Republicans are fine with homosexuality, as are pretty much all of my Republican friends.

The vast majority of muslims aren't terrorists, but we do notice the ones that are not or who support them. Rabidity breeds attention.

 

[maxiep]

So if I convert to Christianity I don't have to follow Kasruth. But I haven't. Of course I don't follow Kashruth anyway except when visiting observant relatives.

Some history. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000. Karl Rove estimated that to win in 2004 he'd need to gain around 4 million evangelical voters. So in 2004 anti-gay ballot initiatives were put on the ballot in 11 states to turn out conservative evangelicals and to appeal to independent voters who did not particularly like Bush but could be terrified by the thought of the "scarey gay". If you vote for Kerry you are voting for "scarey gay" who will take your children and your marriage and spread disease and bring hell on earth. One of these 11 states was Ohio, which Bush won by a very narrow margin and which decided the election. Analysts agree that the anti-gay ballot measure made the difference. Incidentally I did not vote for Kerry, I'm just citing facts.

And the chairman of the Republican party in 2004 was Ken Mehlman. He said not one word.

That's why GLBT folks are now saying for him just to say he feels fine is insufficient. We're all glad he's out. 43 years in the closet is his personal tragedy. But his actions made life that much harder for other gays. And he is right now demonizing Muslims in the same way gays (Blacks, immigrants...) were demonized. Even using the same ad agencies.

The party he is asking GLBT people to support is officially on record opposing any civil partnerships, adoption, anti-discrimination law, ending Don't Ask Don't Tell. He has not publicly asked either his party or any of its individual candidates to change their position. So he can feel fine but what about the rest of us?

Again, you're asking Mr. Mehlman to define himself by his sexuality. What if he prefers to sleep with men, but doesn't have a strong drive to be with one? I know plenty of people who have preferences, but are mostly asexual.

Joe Sestak (the Democratic candidate for Senate from Pennsylvania) is a retired Admiral, yet belongs to a party that demonizes the military, or at best pays perfunctory lip service to it. Should he not "feel fine" about supporting a party that has so often accused members of the military as being bloodthirsty liars?

 

[Denny Crane]

Even though the republicans used anti-gay marriage legislation as a tool to win elections in 2002, 2004, and 2006, I thought Bush was rather "lenient" (for lack of a better word) toward gay people. The person who vetted Colin Powell for Secy. of State is gay. Cheney's daughter is gay. They didn't overturn don't ask/don't tell. Nobody was fired (in the administration) for their sexual preference, etc. In fact, I think they were quite open to having gay members of the military (under DADT), since they needed recruits.

They didn't overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, either.

I think it's a mistake to assume gay people as a bloc only care about one issue. Many I know are content to let the civil rights thing take its course, but are much more interested in having a job or prefer smaller government and lower taxes, etc.

 

[maxiep]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...vatives-dont-seem-to-care-much-101711593.html

 

[BrianFromWA]

Decent use of "couldn't care less".

Hot Air’s Allahpundit was a bit more cynical, suggesting that Mehlman’s timing was strange, considering that rumors swirling his sexuality had gone on for years. “He’s doing this now, it seems, because he wants to drum up publicity for the cause of gay marriage and figures that ‘Republican whom everyone thought was gay actually is gay’ headlines will do the trick.” he wrote, and added, “I couldn’t care less either way. . .”

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...eem-to-care-much-101711593.html#ixzz0xyhyLqAf

 

[crandc]

I was not the one defining Mehlman by his sexual orientation. The whole thread was about that.

There are a group of gay Republicans, all white, except Mary Cheney all male. I do know some of them. They are affluent professionals and businesspeople and so were their parents. Born to privilege, they still think it's a result of their virtue. They are vehemently anti-union. They are strongly anti-immigrant. They consider the person with a menial job or no job to be either lazy or just not too bright so raising minimum wage, unemployment, etc. are to them rewarding a bad or at best lesser person. They hate women's rights with a passion; I have seen unbelievable venom against women's rights, women's sports, even movies directed towards female audiences with independent or off-beat characters (think Thelma & Louise). They are not involved in gay movements thinking that rights are OK for "responsible" gays like themselves but not the unwashed masses. Believe me I am not over generalizing.

Seems to me Democrats go out of their way to express support for military. Who sponsored the bill to increase veterans' benefits? Who opposed it?

Brian, speak for yourself and leave bible out of it. You are doing what Stomp said, cherry picking. Kosher laws don't apply even though clearly stated because another part of the bible you like better says so. Condemnations of gays are valid, our very existence a crime, but you can't quite stomach killing us all so you disregard that statement in your bible. But other Christians have openly called for killing gays; American Christians helped Ugandan Christians write the bill mandating death for gays and prison for anyone who knows or suspects another is gay but does not report them. People "believe" whatever in the bible echoes their beliefs & prejudices. Pro slavery and aboltionist, apartheid and civil rights, equality for women and no rights for women, killing gays and equality for gays, animal torture and kindness to animals, environmental protection and environmental devastation, social justice and fascism, all claim validation with quotes from the same book.

Mook, I clearly understood you were being sarcastic and did not conflate being gay with raping one's daughters. In fact, I'd venture to guess you would not think a girl raped by her father should be forced to carry the pregnancy against her will.

 

[maxiep]

I was not the one defining Mehlman by his sexual orientation. The whole thread was about that.

There are a group of gay Republicans, all white, except Mary Cheney all male. I do know some of them. They are affluent professionals and businesspeople and so were their parents. Born to privilege, they still think it's a result of their virtue. They are vehemently anti-union. They are strongly anti-immigrant. They consider the person with a menial job or no job to be either lazy or just not too bright so raising minimum wage, unemployment, etc. are to them rewarding a bad or at best lesser person. They hate women's rights with a passion; I have seen unbelievable venom against women's rights, women's sports, even movies directed towards female audiences with independent or off-beat characters (think Thelma & Louise). They are not involved in gay movements thinking that rights are OK for "responsible" gays like themselves but not the unwashed masses. Believe me I am not over generalizing.

You are overgeneralizing, plainly and simply. Shame on you. You should know better.