"He supports changing [DADT] in a sensible way"- Page 3

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 5/3/09 at 2:28pm

It's minimally interesting that when the guy who was running for President of the United States said that marriage was between a man and a woman, I heard nary a word from the gay community. They overwhelmingly voted for him. When some bimbo looking to be Mss U.S.A. says the same thing, the gay community verbally crucifies her. I wonder why their priorities are so F'd up?

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 5/3/09 at 2:30pm

blow me johnboy. you conservative hack.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 5/3/09 at 2:36pm

How come you didn't say that to Obama? I'm not against it, he is.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 5/3/09 at 2:38pm

I did. When it comes to gay issues, he can lick my taint.


And yet, he's 1000 times better than McCain would have been, because, as we all know, McCain is a republican.

Updated On: 5/3/09 at 02:38 PM

[tazber]

Posted: 5/3/09 at 2:56pm

You're so confused jb2. Gays hate that dumb twat b/c she's an idiot and can't seem to even speak a coherent sentence (opposite marriage?). Not b/c of her views.

As gays are intellectually superior to breeders like yourself and her, we have a hard time suffering fools.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 5/3/09 at 3:20pm

Okay. So if my inferior intellect has this straight (no pun intended), it's okay for Barama to have the opinion, but not the beauty queen. Unless, of course, that beauty queen is a beauty drag queen. Do I have that right?

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 5/3/09 at 3:26pm

Who's Barama? And no, you still missed taz's sexy point.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 5/3/09 at 3:31pm

Is that the President's name? Whatever. I don't pay any attention to them, once they're in the White House. I only pay attention to the Congress. I wish more people did.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/3/09 at 3:43pm

JohnBoy--face it: You're either with us--or you're a bigot.

I've been waiting to say that to people like you since your 1992 Republican Convention, when you allowed vicious gay-baiting bigots like Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Gary Bauer and Phyllis F*CKin' Schlafly to have their way with your party. You let them into your party, and they busted it up. It's your own damn fault.

Gay marriage will soon be the law of the land, approved by over 50% of the American people.

If you or Carrie Precum feel that goes against the laws of your bible, I say GO AND EAT SHELLFISH.

Updated On: 5/3/09 at 03:43 PM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 5/3/09 at 4:48pm

JB2 - it was how she articulated her views that drew the audible gasps of amazement. If she said "I personally believe marriage should be between a man and a woman", and left it at that, people would not have had the same reaction as:

"I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be between a man and a woman."

If the first sentence and a half were not spoken, I would hazard to guess the reaction to her answer would have been very different.

[nmartin]

Posted: 5/3/09 at 4:58pm

"life is rarely fair for gay people"

Life is rarely fair for ANY people.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/3/09 at 7:25pm

It's minimally interesting that when the guy who was running for President of the United States said that marriage was between a man and a woman, I heard nary a word from the gay community.

It's also patently untrue. Plenty of gay people took (and take) issue with that.
Updated On: 5/3/09 at 07:25 PM

[Q]

Posted: 5/3/09 at 7:37pm

"Plenty of gay people took (and take) issue with that."

Yep.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 5/3/09 at 7:57pm

I guess I missed that on all the shows, and blogs, and this board and on and on and on and on and on. I watched the debate where he said it, or I wouldn't have known he said it. I didn't watch the show where she said it, and it's all I've heard and read. So, I'm guessing that more of a big deal was made about her saying it than his saying it. Just a guess. She was attacked for saying it. On this board and in the media, but I read of no such attacks against the President for saying the same thing. First sentence or not.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/3/09 at 8:04pm

Yes, you must have. I know that I for one made statements about it on here.

I don't know what First sentence or not means.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 5/3/09 at 8:55pm

I believe you when you say you said something about it. I didn't see it. But no one can deny that a great big deal, with personal attacks and hatred thrown at this woman, has occurred, and none of that happened to the guy in the White House, with the exact same view.

And Joey, I don't know who you're mistaking me for, but I don't give a flying fu*k about gay marriage. What makes you think I do? I'm the person who doesn't believe in civil marriage. For anybody! So, if there is such a thing, then I don't care who has one and who doesn't. It's meaningless to me. When you can find a post on these boards where I ever said anything but that, then post it, here. Otherwise, go follow somebody else around.

[Q]

Posted: 5/3/09 at 9:10pm

During the presidential campaign, the gay marriage issue was only one amongst many. Yes, some concern was voiced, but most of what I read indicated that he had to take that position to get elected - and it's not like the alternative would have made a difference on that specific issue. Now what I hear is that he needs to wait until his second term - and I have a feeling he can still count on a majority of the gay vote.

Ms. Prejean's comments were isolated, and came after the disappointment of the Prop 8 outcome.

Comparing the two scenarios is simply not viable in the least.

Updated On: 5/4/09 at 09:10 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/3/09 at 9:16pm

I actually sort of get what you're saying, JB, but I just don't know that the parallel holds water. I hate the president's stance on gay marriage, because it's condescending. That said, there was a time when Obama seemed that he might actually give a crap about gay people. I think those days have passed, though. You're right about people giving Hill crap.

Anyway, Carrie Prejean not only made those dumb ass statements, but is allowing herself to become a symbol of the anti gay-marriage movement. It's not like she quit the pageant and joined PFLAG. She lost, continues to blame the loss on the gays and has now aligned herself with a bunch of bigoted looney tunes masquerading as people who are care about straight people getting caught in the rain.

Some people seem to think I'm all gung ho crazy about gay marriage, and that;s really not the big issue for me. I love that for the first time in my adult life society as a whole are being forced to talk about the "gay problem." We're here. We're queer. And a lot of us had it with your bullsh*t.

We know about about Obama for myriad reasons other than his stance on gay marriage. The only reason who know who Carrie Prejean is is because she doesn't think gay people should be allowed to get married. If her religious convictions are soimportant to her (or at least more important than her charity breast implants), why should anyone feel sorry for her? She is a modern day martyr.

Like the California doctor, forced to choose between her job and her faith, Carrie Prejean is a latter day saint, the exquisite realization of what a true Christian should be.

Updated On: 5/3/09 at 09:16 PM

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 5/3/09 at 9:19pm

Like the California doctor, forced to choose between her job and her faith, Carrie Prejean is a latter day saint, the exquisite realization of what a true Christian should be.

can we crucify her then?

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 5/4/09 at 12:39am

But it's a catch-22. If she had gotten the same non-reaction as the Presidential candidate, she wouldn't be a poster-child for or aligned to any group or allowed to continue to spew her negativity, to anyone. Anywhere! The very people who hate her have given her and those that are now using her the fuel to do so. All she did, originally, was answer a question. The same virtual answer as the candidate for President. It was the reaction to that answer (which, frankly, was personal, crass and hateful), that has spawned everything else. What she's done after answering the question is utterly beside the point I am making. I still say you all gave him a pass. I read nothing personal, crass or hateful about him, as a result of his answer. Thanks Phyllis for your responses.

[Q]

Posted: 5/4/09 at 12:43am

"I still say you all"

And that is something to which I take offense. We are not a 'you all', and have not responded as such. The fact that you approach the subject with that mentality makes YOUR response "personal, crass and hateful".

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/4/09 at 12:53am

You're right Q. What's so funny is that John Boy thinks that because he didn't see it when people were criticizing Obama, it didn't happen. How have you gotten so up there in years thinking that's how the world works John Boy?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 5/4/09 at 1:02am

I am lost. When did Obama call anything "opposite marriage".

I still stand by it was how she answered the question that got her so much grief.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/4/09 at 1:33am

Carrie Prejean wasn't trying to be elected the leader of the free world. I certainly was never going to vote Republican, and I was actually a Hillary supporter to the bitter end. Yes, I know she has the same stance, but it still doesn't change the fact I (I can only speak for me, not "we all") I had vote for someone, and wanted to vote for someone who could actually win, not some bs libertarian candidate.

He's the president. She's Juggs for Jesus. It's not the same thing.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/4/09 at 9:07am

oh, i dunno, phyllis. he's got them jug-ears.