Gay Republicans! Noooooooo!

[Perd Hapley]

Bill Maher said the Republican leadership are all homosexuals!  What will we do?  Is there no hope? 

A distraught fistful looks about for some place to attach the noose he has already secured about his neck. 

 

[wingnutx]

I wish Steve May would run again. He was a great state legislator. I'd send him to congress in a heartbeat.

[Antibubba]

Maybe at some point the GOP platform will no longer insist that homosexuality is a "choice", and to stay out of our bedrooms once and for all.

[Perd Hapley]

Who's bedroom is the GOP in?  I mean, really, even if sodomy is outlawed, who's going to be looking in your bedroom?  When did this ever happen?

What does it matter whether it's a choice?  How does that make it right or wrong?  Where's the proof that it's not chosen? 

[The Rabbi]

Who's bedroom is the GOP in?  I mean, really, even if sodomy is outlawed, who's going to be looking in your bedroom?  When did this ever happen?

What does it matter whether it's a choice?  How does that make it right or wrong?  Where's the proof that it's not chosen? 

I think that was Bowers vs Georgia on the state's sodomy statute.  Of course that was a put-up job by homosexual activists.  I doubt anyone was prosecuted under the statute for 100 years.

[wingnutx]

If you don't intend to enforce a law, then don't put it on the books.

[Azrael256]

I doubt anyone was prosecuted under the statute for 100 years.

  You might be surprised.  Maybe not within the last couple of decades, but I know of prosecutions under that law in Georgia as recently as the lat 1960s.

[auschip]

  Where's the proof that it's not chosen? 

Same place as the proof that a mass of cells in a woman's womb can think?

[Perd Hapley]

Auschip, the burden of proof is on those claiming that the law does not apply to humans in utero. 

When I say no one will be looking in your bedroom, I mean it quite literally.  I oppose laws against homosexuality, but I challenge the notion that any govt. has ever spied into people's homes to enforce such a law.  Enforcement would have been carried out when such a "crime" was done in public (such as a public park after dusk) or in a bath-house sort of environment.

[Joe Demko]

They don't have to look in your bedroom.  Just by existing, such laws give The State one more set of offenses from which to heap charges on you. Kind of the same way they use seatbelt laws.

As for homosexuality being a choice, did you choose to be heterosexual?  When did you choose?  What made you opt for the one over the other?  Could you now decide not to be heterosexual?

[auschip]

Auschip, the burden of proof is on those claiming that the law does not apply to humans in utero. 

When I say no one will be looking in your bedroom, I mean it quite literally.  I oppose laws against homosexuality, but I challenge the notion that any govt. has ever spied into people's homes to enforce such a law.  Enforcement would have been carried out when such a "crime" was done in public (such as a public park after dusk) or in a bath-house sort of environment.

History tells us otherwise.  http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf

In Lawrence vs. Texas, two gay men say the state of Texas deprived them of privacy rights and equal protection under the law when they were arrested in 1998 for having sex in a Houston home.

A neighbor had reported a "weapons disturbance" at the home of John G. Lawrence, and when police arrived they only found two men having sex. Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, were held overnight in jail and later fined $200 each for violating the states Homosexual Conduct law. The neighbor was later convicted of filing a false police report.

[Ned Hamford]

History tells us otherwise.  http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf

In Lawrence vs. Texas, two gay men say the state of Texas deprived them of privacy rights and equal protection under the law when they were arrested in 1998 for having sex in a Houston home.

A neighbor had reported a "weapons disturbance" at the home of John G. Lawrence, and when police arrived they only found two men having sex. Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, were held overnight in jail and later fined $200 each for violating the states Homosexual Conduct law. The neighbor was later convicted of filing a false police report.
[/quote]

I would love to hear the process driven explanation of this occurance.   

Imagine the looks on the faces of the assumedly adrenaline pumped officers who had kicked in the door expecting someone inside to have a weapon drawn.  :insert crude joke here:

[Perd Hapley]

Your example doesn't prove the point.  I didn't say that police wouldn't investigate a "weapons disturbance," and then stumble upon the sexual misconduct.  Look, I understand the phrase is meant metaphorically, so it's a silly conversation, anyway.  As I said, I don't support such laws.

As for homosexuality being a choice, did you choose to be heterosexual?  When did you choose?  What made you opt for the one over the other?  Could you now decide not to be heterosexual?

Your questions assume that the two sexual orientations are the same in this respect.  That is the first weak point in your approach.  You might as well ask someone why they opted for [insert odd sexual predeliction here].  You may as well ask a child why he chose to have an irrational fit of anger and break his bicycle.  The child can't point out a time, place or set of reasons for the choice, but he is blamed for his behavior, nonetheless.  No one imagines that he couldn't help himself.  In any case, it was Antibubba who based his argument on determinism, so it is up to him to demonstrate:

a) That homosexuality is determined by factors without the control of the homosexual.

b) That what is natural is always desirable.  

As to the last question, we know that some people switch between orientations.  We also know that some homosexuals have deliberately changed their orientation.  

[m1911owner]

So, if people don't "choose" to be pedophiles, then pedophilia should be legalized?

[Guest]

So, if people don't "choose" to be pedophiles, then pedophilia should be legalized?

Two consenting adults != a crime with a victim.

[Perd Hapley]

While the comparison between pedophilia and homosexuality is guaranteed to offend, they can be compared in that respect.  Even if they are naturally occurring, they are not necessarily acceptable.  Consent of the other party is not at issue in the question of determinism/choice.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So, if people don't "choose" to be pedophiles, then pedophilia should be legalized?

Sure.  It's all about diversity and tolerance and not discriminating against anyone based on sexual preferences they didn't choose.  [/sarcasm]

Seriously, the argument against pedophilia is that it violates the rights of the child, even if the child wants to participate.  The child is considered incapable of giving consent.  That means that all acts of pedophilia are unconsenting, thus pedophilia is a violation of the child's rights.

An interesting and prickly question arises when you accept the premise that homosexuality is beyond the choice of the homosexual.  If this is the case, then the homosexual is incapable of giving consent to acts of homosexuality, much as the child is incapable of giving consent in acts of pedophilia.  That would tend to make all acts of homosexuality unconsenting, thus a violation of the homosexual's rights.

Discuss.

[Iain]

Eh?

By your logic all heterosexuals would be incapable of giving consent.

[Perd Hapley]

Good catch, Iain.  I'd prefer that pedophilia had not been introduced, but since it has...

We can't compare the two in terms of crime and victims.
We can compare them in terms of whether the homosexual or the pedophile is born that way.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Eh?

By your logic all heterosexuals would be incapable of giving consent.

Exactly.  All sex, of any type is, is unconsentual, at least according to that logic.  Does anyone really choose to desire sex (of any form)?

That's why it's utterly pointless for the gay advocates to blather on about how homosexuality isn't a choice.  That homosexuality is naturally occuring, even if true, is completely irrelevant.

I've heard that defense from pedophiles, too.  Maybe it's true, maybe the pedophile by his nature is unable to choose anything else.  But that doesn't change anything in related to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of pedophilia.

If "it's my nature" is an affirmative defense, then all manner of crimes could be justified.

[Standing Wolf]

I can think of few things half so boring as other people's love lives.

[Perd Hapley]

I didn't start this thread to talk about homerseksialty.  What I was really commenting on was the idea that the left can soften up the base by telling us that all our favorite Republican idols are closet Sodomites.  I think that really would work with some people.  Not with me.  Like anybody else, I lose a little respect for a politician if I find their personal life grossly immoral.  But if I expect them to do the right thing in their official capacity, they'll probably get my vote.  No, that doesn't excuse Clinton.  He was using his position to exploit an intern in the West Wing.

I think the problem some people have is expecting their chosen politicians to be absolute true believers in every political cause they pledge to support.  I wish every politician I supported was like that, but in reality, they do what is necessary to get my vote. 

[Volt]

So the question might be asked: Would an openly gay Republician be able to win an election? I think this might be possible. And it might be a way to get a Republician elected in districts that are considered safe seats for Democrats.

[wingnutx]

So the question might be asked: Would an openly gay Republician be able to win an election? I think this might be possible. And it might be a way to get a Republician elected in districts that are considered safe seats for Democrats.

In Arizona it is.

Like I said, I'd love to vote for Steve May again.

Jim Kolbe was indeed a Rep in a Dem district, and the only openly gay Rep in congress. Not my favorite congressman, but could be a lot worse.

He retired this year.

[Perd Hapley]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Republicans_%28United_States%29

I've excerpted a few that appear to meet your criteria of being elected while openly homosexual.  It is a surprisingly short list. 

Catania was the first openly gay member of the D.C. Council and one of a small number of openly gay Republican office-holders.

Patrick Guerriero is an openly gay Republican politician in the United States who was the leader of the Log Cabin Republicans since January 1, 2003. Previously, he served three terms as a Massachusetts state representative and two as mayor of the city of Melrose.

The article doesn't specify whether he ran openly as a homosexual, but that seems to be the case.

Steven Craig Gunderson....was one of the first openly gay members of Congress and was the first openly gay Republican representative.

This one doesn't say either.

Koering is believed to be the first openly gay Republican elected official in Minnesota.