« Say NO To Party Registration | Main | Any Word From The Mainstreet? »

December 05, 2013


D. Bowman

I just read the Politico story on this. The story says that Forbes is urging the denial of money for a couple of gay candidates. The story does not mention if Forbes' position because of the candidates' sexual orientation, or for some other reason. Is it possible the candidates in question are not true Republicans, but are RINOs?


Well, Tisei is running in Massachusetts so I will take what I can get. But its pretty clear that these two candidates have something in common.

Citizen Tom

What Rep. Randy Forbes' position on homosexuality I don't know. Who the candidates you are talking about I don't know. I just object to the notion that there is something irrational about disapproving of homosexuality.

Because homosexuality is both immoral and irrational, I seriously doubt I would vote for an acknowledged homosexual, but that would depend the of the foolishness the alternative candidates. Immoral and irrational behavior tends to be pervasive amongst human beings.

So what is the problem with the Republican Party contributing to a homosexual candidate? Just how should we react when people do something wrong or just plain dumb and then offer their behavior up as some sort of virtue? Should we appear to be endorsing their behavior. Why?

Does my position make me homophobic? When someone takes reasonable precautions to avoid breathing water, does that make them aquaphobic? Of course not! Because we do not want people harmed, whenever we do anything, we try to understand the risks and avoid doing something dumb. Same-sex sex is a dumb risk. If someone is going to take such a cavalier risk with their own body, what is the point in making them responsible for our tax dollars?

Not Harry F. Byrd

I really don't see how this is the fault of the dastardly establishment. (yet)

It - apparently - is the fault of Randy Forbes who is half the dude I thought he was (granted I wasn't that familiar with him - he's not in my neck of the woods).

Incidentally, if what Politico reported is true - and his (Forbes) statement isn't very convincing to the contrary - there need to be some consequences. I'd love to see Eric Cantor come out and call him on this.

It's absolutely disgraceful - seriously.

D. Bowman

@Citizen Tom. Lot's of folks feel (myself included) that religion is equally irrational.

Not Harry F. Byrd

Unprotected hereto sex is also a risk. Certainly you'd like the government to get involved there too, right Citizen Tom?

Citizen Tom

D. Bowman -- If you think religion is irrational, don't participate. Of course, that is impossible. Everyone believes something about God. If nothing else, we believe He does not exist, and that is totally irrational.

Not Harry F. Byrd -- Your question makes little sense. It is based upon flawed premises.
1. What makes you think I would not have problems with a candidate who advocated fornication?

2. The Republican Party is not the government. The Republican Party is just a private organization that nominates candidates for public office.

Would the Republican and the Democratic Parties like you to believe they are the government? Well, it appears they have already succeeded in so confusing you.

D. Bowman

@Citizen Tom. Same goes for views toward sexuality. If you believe that homosexuality is irrational, don't participate.

The comments to this entry are closed.