Probably not the way you want to come out of the closet if you are a rising Republican politician with a tough on immigration stance

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/02...ims-72779.html

Interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN was pretty funny too

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

What does sexual orientation have to do with immigration policy?

Nothing. The fact that his lover is Mexican has though. Lover says that he is legal here though.

Next time read the entire thing and the link before you post reply. Ok? Sometimes you're more annoying that smokerock

that sheriff seems like a legit dude. i think this is all a setup. he doesnt seem like an asshole at all. hope he gets elected.

unless im wrong and he is a douche.

I watched that Wolf interview and was a little disgusted with myself.

I subconsciously kept judging him for him homosexuality. It looked weird to me seeing an openly gay sheriff, it kept coming across to my robot brain as a weakness.

Made me realize I have alot of social programming to get over no matter how far along I think I am.

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

What does sexual orientation have to do with immigration policy?

I didn't think Republican men were allowed to suck cock? Can someone please clarify?

It's a job requirement of sheriffs in Arizona to be an insufferable cunt.

A consensual relationship with an immigrant has something to do with illegal immigration?

Mods, please re-title to: repub tolerant to gays and immigrants, libs outraged at betrayal of what they think evil repubs are

 

Originally Posted by norcaljeff

A consensual relationship with an immigrant has something to do with illegal immigration?

Mods, please re-title to: repub tolerant to gays and immigrants, libs outraged at betrayal of what they think evil repubs are

confused?

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Not sure I'd state it that way. The Bible gets interpreted in different ways. If you go by what Jesus said, there is nothing sinful about love, no matter who it is you love.

it certainaly does get interpreted in many different ways. It was written by man. That's a surefire way to fuck it all up from the start.

 

Originally Posted by norcaljeff

Yes, confused. Unless op wasnt supposed to make sense

His attitude exuded love for illegal immigrants and immigrants in general. His party's platform is one of acceptance and understanding, especially in Arizona. Obviously it's not important that a guy representing a party with a platform based on homophobia and immigrant hate was fucking a mexican guy. Yep nothing to see here norcal. Be more obtuse.

As a side note, I have no misconceptions that there's a lot of homophobes in the Democratic party, but at least they don't make that into a national platform. Get the point?

Hopefully this proves that being homosexual has no relation to how a guy can do his job and his other interactions with society and it has no affect on a guy's ability to perform in areas such as the military. Next time I'll write you a fucking manual so you won't be so confused norcal

 

Originally Posted by edwardt1988

His attitude exuded love for illegal immigrants and immigrants in general. His party's platform is one of acceptance and understanding, especially in Arizona. Obviously it's not important that a guy representing a party with a platform based on homophobia and immigrant hate was fucking a mexican guy. Yep nothing to see here norcal. Be more obtuse.

As a side note, I have no misconceptions that there's a lot of homophobes in the Democratic party, but at least they don't make that into a national platform. Get the point?

Hopefully this proves that being homosexual has no relation to how a guy can do his job and his other interactions with society and it has no affect on a guy's ability to perform in areas such as the military. Next time I'll write you a fucking manual so you won't be so confused norcal

Hahaha so you say a whole party is based on homophobia and immigrant hate and then accuse someone of being obtuse in the same paragraph? Classic.

 

Originally Posted by dolphin13

Huh? What's your point? You're not making sense but maybe it's just me

Well I think most people would say that it is rather obtuse of him to say that the Gop as a whole is a party of immigrant hate and homophobia. Just because you disagree with a party's policy does not make them homophobic, etc. Hr is the one being obtuse. That is of course unless Webster, et al totally got the definition of obtuse wrong.

 

Originally Posted by FenwayKing

uhhhhh it does if that policy is homophobic...ducy?

Not believing in gay marriage does not automatically classify you as a homophobe, just as not believing in affirmative action action doesn't mean you are a racist or sexist.

 

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

It kind of does, though. I'm not aware of a single rational argument against marriage equality.

So if someone believes that traditionally the definition of marriage has meant one man and one woman, that homosexuals should be granted civil unions in order to have the same rights, but it should not be classified a marriage, that person is a homophobe?

I could maybe see peoples points regarding the sanctity of marriage if I couldnt turn on my TV and watch shit like The Bachelor and Who wants To Marry a Millionaire. Give me a break. Clearly they're trying to make bullshit excuses so they can keep their ass backwards, ignorant philosophies. LOL at arguing things like "the traditonal definition of marriage" Who fucking cares? Am I to believe that you're really that passionate about maintaining the traditional definition of marriage?

Like really, im supposed to sit here and believe you dont have anything against gays but your real concern is making sure we follow the traditional definiton of marriage? Like you or anybody really gives a shit

 

Originally Posted by XXEDPXX

I could maybe see peoples points regarding the sanctity of marriage if I couldnt turn on my TV and watch shit like The Bachelor and Who wants To Marry a Millionaire. Give me a break. Clearly they're trying to make bullshit excuses so they can keep their ass backwards, ignorant philosophies. LOL at arguing things like "the traditonal definition of marriage" Who fucking cares? Am I to believe that you're really that passionate about maintaining the traditional definition of marriage?

Like really, im supposed to sit here and believe you dont have anything against gays but your real concern is making sure we follow the traditional definiton of marriage? Like you or anybody really gives a shit

I have said in other threads that I, along with many other people in this country believe that homosexuality is a life choice. Now I could be wrong on that, but I do not feel as though there is any actual proof that people are born gay.

Because I believe that it is a life choice I feel that we have the right to define it as something other than marriage. If the day comes when homosexuality is Proven to be a way you are born and not a choice then I will 100% switch my position. And be in favor of
calling it marriage.

I guess it matters what you mean by having something against them. I don't personally have anything against any gay person, but I will admit that I do not approve of their lifestyle choice. Now I might not have the right to approve or disapprove, that is an understandable argument, but I don't think that makes me a homophobe.