Anti-gay married state senator arrested for DUI after leaving a gay bar
- Thread starter spike
- Start date
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
He got a DUI, in a state vehicle -- that's BAD, that's the only issue here.
So what if he's gay, why would that matter, you ain't gotta hate If he is gay it's his business and it doesn't mean he has dance the faggy dance politically. What do you have against gays? Why be a hater?
(Also, he's divorced which makes him available.)
He represents me in Sac and he does a decent job fighting for whats right.
So what if he's gay, why would that matter, you ain't gotta hate If he is gay it's his business and it doesn't mean he has dance the faggy dance politically. What do you have against gays? Why be a hater?
(Also, he's divorced which makes him available.)He represents me in Sac and he does a decent job fighting for whats right.
Professur
Well-Known Member
Actually, Spike, this kinda lays waste to the gay rights argument ...since an obviously gay senator, a guy with the power to get that legislation enacted, a guy who could only stand to benefit from it ... doesn't. If that doesn't tell you that those who know the inside story on this know it's worthless ... I dunno what it'll take to convince you.
spike
New Member
No, the issue is he's an anti-gay gay married guy (maybe he divorced, doesn't change much if he did). He's a hypocrite plain and simple. And a drunk driver.
spike
New Member
No, he's a politician. He knows that it's beneficial to to be anti-gay even if he is gay. He doesn't give a shit about what is right. He just wanted to further his political career. Now it is over.
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
spike
New Member
I'm going by this -> "a guy who could only stand to benefit from it".
So I showed that quote not to be true. Many of these guys stand to benefit politically by taking public stances against stupid shit like this. So he benefits by being a hypocrite.
I also take issue with your logic that one politician taking a hypocritical stance on gay rights renders that legislation worthless. By that logic if I find one gay legislator that is not hypocritical on these issues that would make them completely valid.
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
How is it hypocritical? Being gay doesn't mean his entire identity revolves around being gay. His job is not to best represent his own personal interest, it's to represent whats best for the people. (I know that a tough one to understand)
The gay agenda is ridiculous to most reasonable people, including many gay people. Goose stepping because of your sexuality is just plain silly, unless maybe that's the only suit you can wear.
The gay agenda is ridiculous to most reasonable people, including many gay people. Goose stepping because of your sexuality is just plain silly, unless maybe that's the only suit you can wear.
Inkara1
Well-Known Member
I'd planned on posting something about this a couple of days ago, except I hadn't seen ANYONE else report on the "gay club" thing besides that one TV station. Literally every other story on the whole internet about it was citing that one story which was citing unnamed sources. Has that changed? I was out of town for a couple of days and didn't really get to see if the Sacramento Bee (the paper in the Capitol) or the Bakersfield Californian (the hometown paper for his district) had been able to get anything on it.
Altron
Well-Known Member
misleading interpretation of basic statistics
2minkey
bootlicker
that would seem to be the case for several individuals here.
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
You're right again Minx. Everyone should have sex with my wife.
spike
New Member
Nobody said his entire identity revolves around being gay. If they did I missed it.
How is it hypocritical well he's a gay man that presents himself as anti gay. He's a married family values guy that's cheating on his wife in a non-family values way.
I'm not sure who said his job was to represent his own personal interest. What's best for the people is equal rights for all citizens. Not pandering to bigots while misleading them.
What's the gay agenda? Equal rights? Most reasonable people think it's only logical, including most gay people.
Who's goose stepping? Promoting equal rights isn't goose stepping.
The "gay agenda": equal rights.
The "black agenda": equal rights.
The "female/feminist agenda": equal rights.
Rewritten:
"The [gay/black/feminist] agenda is ridiculous to most reasonable people, including many [gay/black/feminist] people. Goose stepping because of your [sexuality/skin color/sex] is just plain silly, unless maybe that's the only suit you can wear."
Why fear equality?
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
Being White he should be voting only for white legislation, or he's Anti-white.
He is divorced, as in not married.
Also, goose-stepping.
He is divorced, as in not married.
Also, goose-stepping.
spike
New Member
So your saying black, gay, or female legislators currently only vote for black, gay, or female legislation? I don't think that is true.
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
No, I'm simply applying your own logic to his whiteness.
Sorry if this notion seem a little radical, enjoy your short circuit.
2minkey
bootlicker
what the hell are you talking about?
(and, no thanks, btw, i've got my hands full as it is.)