[BlackGriffen]

The Dems had the NJ governor, and now one of the most conservative members of congress has been outed a liberal blog. Why did they out him? Well, he co-sponsored the federal marriage amendment. He had a 92% from the Christian Coalition, and a 0% from the Human Rights Campaign. Point being, he was a hypocrite. And, oh yeah, he believes in the sanctity of marriage so much he was cheating on his wife.

Supposedly, the blog had linked to a recording of Schrock using the gay section of a dating service.

I have not personally heard the file, but he certainly did resign quickly for if the allegations had no substance.

BlackGriffen

[zigzag]

Wow, another life shattered! It continues to amaze me that people choose a sexual preference that is almost certain to lead to ruin. As always, I'm glad we have people around willing to offer a cure!

I've heard that repeated viewings of Baywatch can do the trick, but you have to edit the David Hasselhoff parts out.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
The Dems had the NJ governor, and now one of the most conservative members of congress has been outed a liberal blog. Why did they out him? Well, he co-sponsored the federal marriage amendment. He had a 92% from the Christian Coalition, and a 0% from the Human Rights Campaign. Point being, he was a hypocrite.

So gays HAVE to against the federal marriage amendment, and they aren't allowed to support faith-based initiatives? That's ridiculous.

McGreevey's resignation was more about the insane amount of corruption that he and his administration were involved in. He just used the gay thing as a PR stunt to receive sympathy from the rest of the nation, for most of NJ had known he was gay for years.

[itai195]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
So gays HAVE to against the federal marriage amendment, and they aren't allowed to support faith-based initiatives? That's ridiculous.

No, that statement is ridiculous. I wonder how many blacks were against the 13th amendment.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
No, that statement is ridiculous. I wonder how many blacks were against the 13th amendment.

No more ridiculous than comparing sexual preference to race as if they were equal.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No more ridiculous than comparing sexual preference to race as if they were equal.

Or gay marriage and polygamy.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
Or gay marriage and polygamy.

Both have to do with marriage. Both aren't legal. So yes, these can indeed be compared.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Both have to do with marriage. Both aren't legal. So yes, these can indeed be compared.

Both sexual orientation and race have to do with discrimination and civil rights. So yes, these can indeed be compared.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
Both sexual orientation and race have to do with discrimination and civil rights. So yes, these can indeed be compared.

Right, you have a right to be gay, or black. But there is no "You have a right to marry who you wish"

It doesn't exist.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Right, you have a right to be gay, or black. But there is no "You have a right to marry who you wish"

It doesn't exist.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Wow, another life shattered! It continues to amaze me that people choose a sexual preference that is almost certain to lead to ruin. As always, I'm glad we have people around willing to offer a cure!

If you're trying to use this as some sort of proof that homosexuality isn't a choice, then it's not going to work. Many people choose self-destructive behavior patterns (that is, not just doing something once, but repeatedly), aside from any physical form of addiction.

Nowadays it's considered more proper to use the term "self-defeating" if the pattern produced doesn't cause direct physical harm but can seriously screw up a person's life regardless. What we commonly call "Internet addiction" is considered such a pattern, for example, because it often causes severe problems in a person's professional and social life. As a psychological phenomenon, there is no root cause or cure known yet, though it is often linked to other issues, such as depression and low self-esteem.

Does this prove that homosexuality is a choice? Not by any means. But it does mean that your assertion alone doesn't hold as proof the other way. There are much better arguments that you could use.

[Lerkfish]

just in general, I think people should stop worrying about the sexual orientation of people they don't even know.

Life is too short.

[dcolton]

Gays out to destroy gays, interesting.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
just in general, I think people should stop worrying about the sexual orientation of people they don't even know.

Life is too short.

I agree with you, Lerk.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I don't approve of outing. It's a nasty, underhanded, vindictive tactic. Nobody is obligated to make their personal life public. If being gay is a non-issue (as I beleive), then it is hypocritical to make it an issue, and it is cruel to use it as a political weapon.

That said, I think this guy's votes are pretty awful. I'd disagree with him on the merits of his positions. But he has a right to them whatever his sexual orientation. It seems that liberals can tolerate anything except diversity of opinion.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
just in general, I think people should stop worrying about the sexual orientation of people they don't even know.

Life is too short.

Hold on to your hat, Lerk, but I'm in complete agreement with you.

I think the only reason that Schrock would quit is because he is obviously pretty hypocritical. Cheating on your wife with a man or a woman is still cheating, and he portrayed himself as a clean cut Christian type.

That's just the thing - he didn't resign because he's gay any more than McCreevy did. One was corrupt, the other a hypocrite that would have probably lost his next election once this news got out.

I could care less if my Governor was gay. For the past four years we've had one of the dimmest bulbs in the pack as our governor in Montana. I would rejoice to have someone who was bright, gay or not.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Right, you have a right to be gay, or black. But there is no "You have a right to marry who you wish"

It doesn't exist.

"PAW! Zimphire sez whitey don' marry no ******-girl, cuz he ain't got no rights!"

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If you're trying to use this as some sort of proof that homosexuality isn't a choice, then it's not going to work. Many people choose self-destructive behavior patterns (that is, not just doing something once, but repeatedly), aside from any physical form of addiction.

Nowadays it's considered more proper to use the term "self-defeating" if the pattern produced doesn't cause direct physical harm but can seriously screw up a person's life regardless. What we commonly call "Internet addiction" is considered such a pattern, for example, because it often causes severe problems in a person's professional and social life. As a psychological phenomenon, there is no root cause or cure known yet, though it is often linked to other issues, such as depression and low self-esteem.

Does this prove that homosexuality is a choice? Not by any means. But it does mean that your assertion alone doesn't hold as proof the other way. There are much better arguments that you could use.

It was a moment of bitter sarcasm, nothing more.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
"PAW! Zimphire sez whitey don' marry no ******-girl, cuz he ain't got no rights!"

Hmmm... I'm trying to make sense of that slur, but it's proving to be a bit difficult. Maybe you could try a little harder.


Or, maybe you can work on the racism and rights issues in your own country? That would be a novel concept.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't approve of outing. It's a nasty, underhanded, vindictive tactic. Nobody is obligated to make their personal life public. If being gay is a non-issue (as I beleive), then it is hypocritical to make it an issue, and it is cruel to use it as a political weapon.

While I agree it shouldn't be done to just any person, even if you disagree with them, this guy is special. He chose to make homosexuality an issue. He chose to make infidelity an issue. That he did those things, and behaved in a way precisely contrary, makes him a hypocrite, and voters deserve to know.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
While I agree it shouldn't be done to just any person, even if you disagree with them, this guy is special. He chose to make homosexuality an issue. He chose to make infidelity an issue. That he did those things, and behaved in a way precisely contrary, makes him a hypocrite, and voters deserve to know.

BlackGriffen

The is no one set of opinions that a homosexual is required to hold. A homosexual can legitimately be opposed to gay marriage. For example, he might oppose it for religious reasons. I'd argue with him on the merits of that position as a public policy matter, but it is his position to take. Has he done or said anything that goes beyond simply voting in ways that these people disagree with?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't approve of outing. It's a nasty, underhanded, vindictive tactic. Nobody is obligated to make their personal life public. If being gay is a non-issue (as I beleive), then it is hypocritical to make it an issue, and it is cruel to use it as a political weapon.

I agree with this, too. It's hypocritical to use sexuality as a weapon when you say that it's no reason to harm people.

That said, I think this guy's votes are pretty awful. I'd disagree with him on the merits of his positions. But he has a right to them whatever his sexual orientation. It seems that liberals can tolerate anything except diversity of opinion.

The people who call themselves liberals today don't disagree with diversity of opinion, per se. It seems more as though it's a disagreement with diversity of worldview.

WARNING: The following post is going to seem very mystical. It is not my intent to flame; I'm simply trying to understand this using a very different tactic from what's normally tried. I could very well be wrong in a lot of this.

There seems, from what I have seen, to be a vague notion of "enlightenment" among liberals. That's not a word they use, but they don't seem to have a word for it at all; it's a topic not generally discussed. What exactly this enlightenment is seems to be extremely hard to define but extremely easy to recognize. It's not so much a belief itself as a very basic way of viewing the world. The best way I've heard it described -though this isn't quite accurate either- is as follows: "There is no darkness, only light". The phrase is common enough -it comes from physics- but this form of enlightenment applies it to every domain of existence, from the scientific to the philosophical to the epistemological and so on..

This notion of enlightenment is very basic, but it is extremely strict. Many ideologies and viewpoints can come forth logically from it, and these are accepted (or, at the absolute least, tolerated) wholeheartedly and without question; as an enlightened viewpoint it has a fundamental right to exist, and that is the end of it. Debate its merits all you want, but it's valid and nothing can change that. This encompasses a fairly wide range of beliefs, and so this is taken to mean diversity of opinion.

This is an honest attempt at understanding, so I ask the liberals: how am I doing? Am I hitting even relatively close to the mark so far? I have more to say on the matter, but I'd like to make sure that I have this part right first.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
"PAW! Zimphire sez whitey don' marry no ******-girl, cuz he ain't got no rights!"

[Millennium]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Hmmm... I'm trying to make sense of that slur, but it's proving to be a bit difficult. Maybe you could try a little harder.

I think that the slur is an attempt to equate the issue with racism, working once again on the assumption that both are inborn.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I think that the slur is an attempt to equate the issue with racism, working once again on the assumption that both are inborn.

Well we know ONE is for a fact. But you are right. The other is an assumption. Quite a large one considering there are have been many that have changed.

There is only one person I know that used to be black that is no longer. And he is a child molester.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The is no one set of opinions that a homosexual is required to hold. A homosexual can legitimately be opposed to gay marriage. For example, he might oppose it for religious reasons. I'd argue with him on the merits of that position as a public policy matter, but it is his position to take. Has he done or said anything that goes beyond simply voting in ways that these people disagree with?

It looks like you can add the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy to the list:

As for critics who condemn Rogers' tactics as immoral, the activist asked what is moral about Schrock's support for ending the Clinton administration's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military - given Schrock's own alleged conduct.

I'm having trouble finding a direct quote, but he also opposed anti discrimination laws involving employment of homosexuals.

I'd keep digging, but I don't have time.

BlackGriffen

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Well we know ONE is for a fact. But you are right. The other is an assumption. Quite a large one considering there are have been many that have changed.

There is only one person I know that used to be black that is no longer. And he is a child molester.

LOL. But little Joey said he was still hung like a horse!

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't approve of outing. It's a nasty, underhanded, vindictive tactic. Nobody is obligated to make their personal life public.

Whilst I agree with the theory of this statement, don't your politicians have to declare their interests, like they do in the UK?

And if a politician 'forgets' to declare a particular interest, then it is supposedly in the 'public interest' that this be declared by whomsoever knows it, whether that interest be in Halliburton or in gay sex.

Outing someone as having hidden business interests is apparently morally acceptable, but outing someone as having hidden sexual proclivities is apparently not. I find this dichotomy worthy of note.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
It looks like you can add the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy to the list:


I'm having trouble finding a direct quote, but he also opposed anti discrimination laws involving employment of homosexuals.

I'd keep digging, but I don't have time.

BlackGriffen

But again, those are just votes that these activists disagree with. I happen to agree with them on the merits, but those votes still aren't a reason to try to destroy him personally by outing.

Now, if he has a history of actual anti-gay activity, then that is different. For example, if he hangs out with Fred Phelps, makes speeches about how immoral gays are, etc. Then I could see an argument. But just because they don't like his voting record? No, that's just wrong.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by christ:
Whilst I agree with the theory of this statement, don't your politicians have to declare their interests, like they do in the UK?

The declaration of interest, last I checked, only dealt with political interests. UK politicians don't have to provide a list of hobbies and such, because these are not relevant.

Outing someone as having hidden business interests is apparently morally acceptable, but outing someone as having hidden sexual proclivities is apparently not. I find this dichotomy worthy of note. [/B]

Indeed, and the difference is quite easy to define. The former is relevant -or at least potentially relevant- to how this person will perform their duties. The latter is not. Indeed, I think the man's voting record is proof enough that his sexuality didn't influence his voting patterns.

[christ]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The declaration of interest, last I checked, only dealt with political interests.

Not in the UK. Here it is 'pecuniary interests or other material benefits'. This would not include sexual preferences (but is wider than 'political' interests)

Indeed, and the difference is quite easy to define. The former is relevant -or at least potentially relevant- to how this person will perform their duties. The latter is not. Indeed, I think the man's voting record is proof enough that his sexuality didn't influence his voting patterns.

That is not the point. The point is that it could have influenced his decisions. That is precisely the point with the register of interests - it was a long time coming here, because politicians always insisted that their pecuniary interests would not affect the way that they voted. Over time it was determined that this was not, in all cases, true. It turns out that some politicians aren't as moral as their speeches would indicate, and that some are affected by their interests.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But again, those are just votes that these activists disagree with. I happen to agree with them on the merits, but those votes still aren't a reason to try to destroy him personally by outing.

Now, if he has a history of actual anti-gay activity, then that is different. For example, if he hangs out with Fred Phelps, makes speeches about how immoral gays are, etc. Then I could see an argument. But just because they don't like his voting record? No, that's just wrong.

We should get one thing straight here. They used a tape of him soliciting gay sex using a telephone dating service. The man was already out. The information was public. These folks just pointed it out.

It's not like they were digging private letters out of his garbage or anything.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
We should get one thing straight here. They used a tape of him soliciting gay sex using a telephone dating service. The man was already out. The information was public. These folks just pointed it out.

How do you figure that a conversation to a telephone dating service is public information? That's clearly his private life.

This is exactly the same thing as happened to Andrew Sullivan a couple of years ago. He places a dating ad, and some vindictive person published it to attack him.

[christ]

Tell me something - if it is illegal to discriminate against gays, then being gay has no stigma attached, then why would someone feel the need to hide the fact?

Why is 'outing' someone anymore offensive than telling the world that the Rock likes knitting?

Why is sexual proclivity hidden?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't approve of outing. It's a nasty, underhanded, vindictive tactic. Nobody is obligated to make their personal life public. If being gay is a non-issue (as I beleive), then it is hypocritical to make it an issue, and it is cruel to use it as a political weapon.

I agree, as would any sane person. On the other hand, you have to admit that, in US politics, simply knowing someone's sexual orientation would hardly be some kind of unusual invasion of privacy. We generally get into their personal lives a helluva lot more than that. Clinton had an affair, and we literally made it a "federal case." And it's not just Clinton, it's any politician or celebrity. And wasn't this a case of revealing not just his sexual orientation, but that he was having affairs?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by christ:
Tell me something - if it is illegal to discriminate against gays, then being gay has no stigma attached, then why would someone feel the need to hide the fact?

Conscience.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
How do you figure that a conversation to a telephone dating service is public information? That's clearly his private life.

This is exactly the same thing as happened to Andrew Sullivan a couple of years ago. He places a dating ad, and some vindictive person published it to attack him.

Actually, it wasn't a conversation, it was an ad.

And it's public information because, uh, anyone in the public could access it (with the possible small access barrier of paying a fee).

This link supposedly leads to the audio - the file didn't work for me, though.

This page has a transcript:

Uh, hi, I weigh 200 pounds, uh, six-foot-four, hazel eyes, blond hair, very muscular, very buffed-up, uh, very tanned, um, I'd just like to get together with a guy from time to time just to -- just to play. I'd like him to be, uh, in very good shape, flat stomach, good chest, good arms, well-hung, cut, uh, just get naked, play, and see what happens, nothing real heavy duty, but just a fun time, go down on him, he can go down on me, and just, uh, take it from there. Hope to hear from you. Bye.

BlackGriffen

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Conscience.

Try again. Hint: people like you.

BG

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I agree, as would any sane person. On the other hand, you have to admit that, in US politics, simply knowing someone's sexual orientation would hardly be some kind of unusual invasion of privacy. We generally get into their personal lives a helluva lot more than that. Clinton had an affair, and we literally made it a "federal case." And it's not just Clinton, it's any politician or celebrity. And wasn't this a case of revealing not just his sexual orientation, but that he was having affairs?

It really is different for gay people. It's hard to convey why, but it is. I'd point as evidence that I know of at least one quite well known liberal Democrat in the House who is in the closet. His party is pro-gay. His family (quite prominent) is pro-gay. His own positions are pro-gay. But he is in the closet. It would be wrong to out him. It was wrong when some activists recently tried to out Barbera Mikulsky (D-Md) (though that is no surprise to anyone), and it was wrong when others were outed. I would encourage people to come out. But it is not a decision that anyone else has the right to make for you.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Actually, it wasn't a conversation, it was an ad.

And it's public information because, uh, anyone in the public could access it (with the possible small access barrier of paying a fee).

This link supposedly leads to the audio - the file didn't work for me, though.

This page has a transcript:


BlackGriffen

It was his private life.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It was his private life.

Advertisements are public.

He's the one who put it out there.

BG

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Advertisements are public.

He's the one who put it out there.

BG

You have an odd definition of what is public. Sex ads are to me, clearly private. Saying otherwise is perilously close to the argument that social conservatives used to justify the government regulating what goes on in the bedroom. I thought at least liberals had concluded when Griswald was decided. If buying condoms is protected by privacy, this is too. It's his sex life, and it is private.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You have an odd definition of what is public. Sex ads are to me, clearly private. Saying otherwise is perilously close to the argument that social conservatives used to justify the government regulating what goes on in the bedroom. I thought at least liberals had concluded when Griswald was decided. If buying condoms is protected by privacy, this is too. It's his sex life, and it is private.

If everyone in the public can access it, the information is public. It seems like common sense to me.

If this were a private phone conversation, I would agree with you. If this were the result of someone tailing the guy and recording his actions, I would agree with you. AFAICT, this is the result of someone recognizing his voice in the ad, and pointing it out to others.

BG

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
If everyone in the public can access it, the information is public. It seems like common sense to me.

If this were a private phone conversation, I would agree with you. If this were the result of someone tailing the guy and recording his actions, I would agree with you. AFAICT, this is the result of someone recognizing his voice in the ad, and pointing it out to others.

BG

This is pretty close to stalking the guy.

I don't know whether this would be legally actionable or not. My guess is probably not, but I don't know. But broadcasting theguy's sex ad is slimy. Much more slimy than simply saying "such and such is gay." I have nothing but contempt for anyone who would stoop so low to score a political point. Scum like that make me embarrassed to be gay.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is pretty close to stalking the guy.

Did you not pay attention to what I said? I agreed that those tactics would be over the line.

I don't know whether this would be legally actionable or not. My guess is probably not, but I don't know. But broadcasting theguy's sex ad is slimy. Much more slimy than simply saying "such and such is gay." I have nothing but contempt for anyone who would stoop so low to score a political point. Scum like that make me embarrassed to be gay.

What's slimy about passing along a public ad? Most advertisers would love free publicity.

BlackGriffen

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Try again. Hint: people like you.

BG

No, I think you're wrong here. The majority of people are raised to feel that homosexuality is abnormal (if not completely wrong). Thus, when a person feels some type of attraction towards a person of the same sex they, at least at first, feel ashamed to a degree. So, not knowing what to do, they hide it.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, I think you're wrong here. The majority of people are raised to feel that homosexuality is abnormal (if not completely wrong). Thus, when a person feels some type of attraction towards a person of the same sex they, at least at first, feel ashamed to a degree. So, not knowing what to do, they hide it.

And why are they raised that way, again?

BG

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
And why are they raised that way, again?

BG

Don't know, ask their parents. Usually has to do with the fact that it's not a completely natural thing... parents typically like having grandkids.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Don't know, ask their parents. Usually has to do with the fact that it's not a completely natural thing... parents typically like having grandkids.

Nice bull$hit dodge.

BG

[Millennium]

Originally posted by christ:
Not in the UK. Here it is 'pecuniary interests or other material benefits'. This would not include sexual preferences (but is wider than 'political' interests)

Actually, the word "pecuniary" means "relating to money". You may have been thinking of the word "prurient", which relates to sexuality.

Anyway, "pecuniary interests" are financial interests. Dick Cheney's connection to Halliburton would be an example of such an interest. His daughter's sexual orientation, however, would not be.

For that matter, "interest" is not used in the same sense as "things which a person is interested in". Rather, it is used in the sense of "things in which the person has a personal stake". Again, Dick Cheney's Halliburton connection qualifies, but not his daughter's sexual orientation.

So, for example, a pecuniary interest of Dick Cheney's would include "I am on Halliburton's payroll". It would not include "I like buying cars", even though it relates to money, because the term "pecuniary interest" doesn't cover hobbies.

In any case, sexual orientation is not, even in the remotest possible sense of the word, a pecuniary interest.

That is not the point. The point is that it could have influenced his decisions.

How? Honest question; unless you're going to spew some "gay agenda" crap, then there is no feasible way it could have influenced his decisions.

If that's the case, than each politician ought to bring out a full list of hobbies. Oh, hell; let's have the whole CV laid right out in front of us, and throw in elementary school records for good measure.

Such a proposal is, of course, ridiculous, as I'm sure you'd agree. But that is what the definition of "interest" would mean in your case. You are right that a politician's pecuniary interests can influence their voting decisions, and thus they should be reported. Sexual orientation is, however, not a pecuniary interest.