General Question

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

111 Answers

Response moderated
MrItty's avatar

No. Mostly because I have far more important things to wonder about politicians than what their sexual preference might be.

Jiminez's avatar

@asmonet Not you, apparently?

TaoSan's avatar

The Republican Party

asmonet's avatar

@Jiminez: I don’t care what people do with their own vagina or penis. It doesn’t concern me, and speculation is a waste of time.

Jiminez's avatar

@asmonet I think you’re missing the point. If you support the legalization of gay marriage, then it might matter if there are gay politicians voting against pro-LGBT legislation. Did you click on the link? No one seems to pay attention to links around here.

filmfann's avatar

First off, I believe Orrin Hatch of Utah is probably gay. That would make no difference to my opinion of him, but if he is, I wish he would fight for gay rights. If he did, it would vastly change my opinion of him.

asmonet's avatar

@Jiminez: Generally, you’d fill in pertinent information in the Details section and provide the link if the link was related. You do not ask a general question, and make a single link the context.

I am not missing the point, people suck. They do bad things. But they were elected. Guessing who is gay does absolutely nothing to change whether or not a politician is, and it certainly gains nothing or changes a thing.

So, they’re hypocrites. Okay, I’m not joining the witch hunt to go tear down their lovely house of lies. They probably have many deep fears and insecurities, why would I actively seek to expose them and cause them harm? They’re still people.

Lying hypocrites, but people.

The documentary means nothing to me.

I didn’t vote for those politicians and regardless of how wrong I think they are, I cannot change their political views, certainly not from outing them.

Jiminez's avatar

@asmonet – That’s assuming I want to follow a mold set for me. I don’t. Individuality is good. Regarding the rest, fine. Your opinion is your own. Not everyone feels the way you do.

asmonet's avatar

@Jiminez: I respect that, and thanks for doing the same. I just think that when worded clearly and fully, discussions are more likely to head in a productive direction. I would have read more, if there was more and I may have written more in response. Even something completely different. Who knows?

As it is, I responded to the title question. Without connecting it to the video, which very rarely catches my eye.

The_Compassionate_Heretic's avatar

It stands to reason that there are probably several that are in the closet. I cite as example Ex-Senator Craig of Idaho who was caught soliciting gay sex in an airport men’s room.

Jiminez's avatar

@asmonet I’m afraid there just wasn’t much to say about it and there isn’t always something to say about a link you’re posting. That’s why I think that guideline (if it is one) totally squashes user creativity and individuality and is a drain on content. And here we are talking about the website instead of the topic at hand. I haven’t much felt like coming around here lately. I’ll leave you free to speculate on why.

Dog's avatar

~Why stop with speculation on sexual preference? Why don’t we speculate on who watches porn or likes bondage or sex with small animals? Lets look at who is voting against animal rights funding and guess who might have gerbils as part of the sex toy collection?

I will be very honest. When I read this post I was bothered by the (once again) attempt to isolate and label other humans as different (thinly veiled gay-bashing). After watching the video I just saw this question as gossip.

To be further blunt- this is politics.

It is not a surprise to me in the slightest that * gasp! * a politician might be a hypocrite? Say it ain’t so!

I am not a fan of this kind of political manipulation. I think every human being is entitled to have a private life and to choose to make public only what they wish to.

asmonet's avatar

I don’t want to get into a debate over the guidelines, I support them and the details are optional according to them, I was merely speaking to my preference and what I’ve seen gain the best result. You have your opinion. I have mine. :)

AstroChuck's avatar

Most of the religious right.

Triiiple's avatar

It was funny as hell when the Governor or Mayor of Jersey put himself out there.

I think less are homosexual though and more are closet Prostitute Johns.

hungryhungryhortence's avatar

It’s been pointed out to me many times that a politician doesn’t always support causes they believe in because they must concentrate on the ones that have the most chance of success. Some choose to put agendas close to their chests aside in order to serve the greater whole who elected them to represent them.

El_Cadejo's avatar

@Triiiple i really dont get why he resigned after coming out of the closet. It was almost as if he was saying its wrong to be gay and he cant be governor anymore because of that. I think he should have just came out and said, im gay, deal with it, you liked me before as a governor so this should change nothing.

DrBill's avatar

Who cares…

BTW your question is so last century.

TaoSan's avatar

@DrBill

I don’t think this question is outdated at all.

Mamradpivo's avatar

@AstroChuck I couldn’t agree more. Rick Santorum, Larry Craig, Orrin Hatch, Sam Brownback, James Dobson, and everyone else who makes a huge deal about teh scary gheys. They’re all confused and very repressed, and scared to death about it.

@Dog I agree in principle that everyone is entitled to a private life, but when you dedicate most of your public life to halting the social advancement of others for what they do in their private lives, then I think it’s fair that we speculate on your private life.

Triiiple's avatar

@uberbatman I know he was just gay, i mean millions of Americans are who cares?

Isnt it worse that the new Governor of New York i think, is blind and has already got some adultery/prostitute rumors going around.

cwilbur's avatar

I think that when a politician owes his advancement in part to demonizing gay people, what he chooses to do in his bedroom is entirely relevant.

If a gay or bisexual man incites other people to hate gay people, then he should be the first target of that hate. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

TaoSan's avatar

@cwilbur

Bushido with a pompom!

just lightening up the conversation :)

filmfann's avatar

@lefteh lol Lindsey Graham is not just gay, he’s creepy.
Once again, it’s okay to be gay, but be honest about it. It would make me laugh if Barney Frank turned out to be secretly married, and his “homosexuality” was just a front to get him elected.

casheroo's avatar

I really don’t care. I just hate when it destroys the persons family, like the jersey governor :( It’s a shame people have to hide it.

eponymoushipster's avatar

1 – according to @asmonet, what I do with my penis is my biz. Yay for anal!

2 – rush limbaugh. Because he’s a bag of dicks.

El_Cadejo's avatar

Hey epony! Go suck a bag of dicks!

Response moderated
El_Cadejo's avatar

lol flame bait ^

Crusader's avatar

How is this falme bait? Is truth flame-bait? I beleive what many other posts have been Christian-bait

Crusader's avatar

Answer me this, Uber,

What advantages are there for the straight socially conservative middle-class Christian male? To vote Republican the benefits for him are…what? To represent constituents of such people you need to endure continuous incendiary language, Hate,mis-charaterizations of truth, and an oppostition that is 95% unified, so long as their ‘leaders’ legislate laws that benifit tham personally. Where are the ‘moderate’ liberals? Pleny of moderate conservatives.

Such conservatives recieve Nothing personally for their vote yet maintain strong family ties, work hard and pay taxes, in often tedious, low-paying professions. Yet they know that their children will be able to live in a relatively safe environment, and be encouraged to find a mate of the opposite sex, (though not Forced to,) and have a family. Family and children are more valued by conservatives.

casheroo's avatar

I’d love to know what sexually “permiscuous” meant

Wow, I better tell my husband that I’m homosexual. He won’t be surprised, since I’m a lib.

Crusader's avatar

Casheroo,

The previous post should have said ’...and/Or preferring such as acquaintences…’ I have family just like this and know many others as well. Though many are married women, (to men,) they are Very tolerant of homosexuals, such that they Prefer their company, and will support and defend their lifestyle and often off-color remarks and even solicitation of their children by them-even to the point of contradicting their husband. Is this healthy? Tolerance and ‘minority-worship’ are two Very different subjects, particularly when is divides the most sacred union of all, man and woman.

casheroo's avatar

uh oh, how’d you know i worship a shrine for minorities in my closet?!

El_Cadejo's avatar

cash, stop playing with the troll. :P

Crusader's avatar

‘Minority-worship’ is precisely what it is. Why else would the lifestyle be encouraged and subsidized? Protection? More like social engineered political expediency. Obviously you refuse to acknowledge the detriment of such division between a husband and wife, for them and their children, but this does not make the consequences any less.

Crusader's avatar

Thank you both for proving my point by not answering the question of subsidies and double-standards.

El_Cadejo's avatar

@crusader Sorry, but im not going to reply to any of your flame bait, ill just patiently wait for the mods to clean up. No double standards, just no time to get in a pointless argument with a religious nut.

eponymoushipster's avatar

I’m just glad to know the term “bag of dicks” makes Crusader appear from under his rock!

casheroo's avatar

@uberbatman you started it

filmfann's avatar

@Crusader You said ”‘Minority-worship’ is precisely what it is. Why else would the lifestyle be encouraged and subsidized?”
Are you saying that Minority lifestyle should be discouraged?
Are you saying Minorities prefer being minorities, and that white, blue collar liberals wish they were a minority?
Why can’t we have a fair society? Why do racists always try to divide us?
Just for one moment ask yourself if you would feel this way if you were a minority.

filmfann's avatar

Thanks for proving my point by not answering.
Either that, or you’re too busy playing 5 on 1 while watching Hannah Montana reruns.

AstroChuck's avatar

Hey, seVen! Where are you?

TaoSan's avatar

weeeeeeeee I haven’t fed a troll in while!!!!!

It does fancy tricks if you feed it, you know!!!!!

Blondesjon's avatar

Isn’t everyone who is getting angry at Crusader for his/her statements also saying that homosexuality is bad? Think about it, you are getting angry because he called your flavor of politics gay. By doing that you are telling others that to be called gay is bad. By proxy that makes being gay bad.

What a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

casheroo's avatar

@Blondesjon I hope you’re kidding. I don’t know how you came to that conclusion at all.

Blondesjon's avatar

@casheroo…You are all jumping on Crusader, who is being a dick, for referring to liberals as gay. If that statement makes you angry than you obviously think that referring to someone as “gay” is an insult. If it’s insulting to you than that means you consider it bad. How can I be any clearer than that?

casheroo's avatar

No, he said “All democrats are either homosexual, bi-sexual, transgendered, sexually permiscuous,”
First off, it’s not just that he made a blanket statement about a large group of people, he didn’t just say homosexual. He was attacking people who ARE honosexual, bisexual, transgendered and sexually promiscuous. That last one is actually the only real insulting one I guess, but I’m sure his idea of promiscuous is different than mine.

Blondesjon's avatar

Each and every thing that you listed is a personal choice and I don’t see a thing wrong with any of them. I certainly don’t see how they are insulting.

You said he was attacking these various groups. Attacking them how? By calling them liberal? Are you that conservative?

El_Cadejo's avatar

@Blondesjon not so at all. I got mad because he made blanket statements in a trolling flame bait manner.

Blondesjon's avatar

@uberbatman…Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

El_Cadejo's avatar

@Blondesjon There is a difference. I dont like blanket statements with anything especially when its only done to get a rise out of people. It doesnt matter what he was calling who, just the fact it was being done.

Blondesjon's avatar

@uberbatman….True You have the right to comment on whatever you like or dislike. I was just pointing out that a lot of not-uberbatmans are getting pissed like we’re all still on the playground and someone just called them a gaylord.

i miss the unicorn :(

El_Cadejo's avatar

briefly brought out of retirement for you :P

AstroChuck's avatar

@TaoSan- I hear that if you hit a troll on the head just right he becomes fifty gold coins.

jonsblond's avatar

I see blanket statements about Republicans here on fluther all the time, yet nobody gets upset when that happens.

btw I’m not republican, just making an observation.

eponymoushipster's avatar

let’s face it. none of them are gay. some of them just like banging other dudes. you know, you get caught in a room full of 100 odd other old white dudes, very few ladies, some dude-bangin’ is bound to occur.

and that’s exactly why i don’t ride the subway in Tokyo.

T.D. Jakes wrote a book about it, “on the downlow” or something to that effect.

@jonsblond – i think people are jumping on Crusader because he’s a dongburger, first and foremost. and secondly, @AstroChuck is right – hit him right, he becomes 50 gold coins. just be careful, if he’s at the end of a rainbow, he might kill himself, just because he’s that into the movement.

apparently they don’t teach spelling in the right wing of the school.

cwilbur's avatar

@Blondesjon: The intent behind the statement matters. If Crusader called all liberals Hispanic because of his caricature of their view on illegal immigration, it would be a stupid statement, worthy of correction. When he calls all liberals gay, it’s just as stupid, just as inaccurate, and just as worthy of correction.

It’s not that being gay is a terrible thing. It’s that being called gay when you’re not (especially by someone who disapproves of homosexuality, and likely intends it as an insult) is annoying as heck.

Blondesjon's avatar

@cwilbur…I agree. I just hopped in there because, as jonsblond pointed out, when it is not Fluther’s flavor it is perfectly ok to bash it.

cwilbur's avatar

@Blondesjon: of course, Fluther is run by the great liberal conspiracy!

Or haven’t you noticed that conservative-bashing and religion-bashing gets smacked down too?

Blondesjon's avatar

@cwilbur…If I didn’t know better I’d say your answer was tinged with a touch of sarcasm.

eponymoushipster's avatar

…and cinnamon.

benjaminlevi's avatar

All of them?

jonsblond's avatar

@benjaminlevi good answer, good answer!

Crusader's avatar

Correction, collective, I said

All democrats are homosexuals, bisexuals, transgendered, sexually promiscuous, and/Or sympathetic with the lifestyle and the financial benefits it renders from their constituents.’
Thus to allude that I stipulated that all demon-crats were such,(Gay,) is a bold-face Lie.
Try and quote the Entire post, (and corrected two lines later..) not just selected parts..I Know its hard, John Steward, and Steve Cobert, your patriarchs, as well as Nancy Pelosi, and Barbara Boxer, among other libs, quote portions of statements or out of context All the Time.

The is nothing new under the sun.

casheroo's avatar

@Crusader So, it’s wrong to feel compassion for fellow man, no matter their lifestyle? That’s basically what you’re saying.

Blondesjon's avatar

@Crusader…If you’re going to bitch about that, I have a name for you…Carl Rove.

‘Nuff said.

eponymoushipster's avatar

@Crusader Jon Stewart

p.s. – you must have quite an ulcer with all that vitriol in your gut.

@Blondesjon Karl Rove

Crusader's avatar

Typical, off-topic, and ad-homonims. Is this the best you can do? Christian’Compassion’ is not Elevation of the so-called ‘minority’ in every way, shape and form.

‘Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers’

Jesus.

I have written this before and will again, though you all have read and know it anyway. It bears repeating for other readers.

Jiminez's avatar

Stop trolling, Crusader. Namely, on my questions. If you’re gonna do it, do it elsewhere. And I don’t know why you added my to your Fluther. If you’re a conservative, then I’m probably your worst nightmare.

eponymoushipster's avatar

@Crusader you’re a medical wonder, you are. the first talking ass.

try quoting, not misquoting Scripture. that verse refers to marriage. and if you want to apply it to this website, then perhaps you should cancel your fluther account and go BFF with kirk cameron.

Crusader's avatar

Jimenez,

Last time I checked this was an open forum, you are welcome to contribute to my posts, as I am to yours, relevancy to the question is, I believe, the criterion, though I have been to many other posts where several posts were not relevant whatsoever. In any case, if I could retract you a a fluther member, I would, you are obviously trolling for infor for your liberal article/book or whatever, and, if you want to threaten, I believe the moderator would be interested in such language.

Crusader's avatar

epony,

Your obscenities never cease to amaze. You have chosen an appropriat icon, also, I believe, very hollow, and unhappy. In any case, I stand by the pertinence of my quote, you are welcome the re-interpret the Word all you like.

eponymoushipster's avatar

@Crusader
1) use the @ configuration. i don’t know what they do on PsychoDate.net, but we use the @ here.

2) what makes you a Bible scholar? i haven’t seen anything in any of your posts that shows you to be anything more than some warped nutjob, spouting whatever political radio has told you to say. You’re probably the same as the people who think Jesus used the King James Bible.

p.s. – how do you know i wasn’t referring to a biblical incident? get the chip off your shoulder sunny jim.

as for my avatar, if you even have to go that far, you’re pretty done. you have a generic jellyfish avatar off the site. what does that say about you? follows the crowd, can’t show a spark of self-awareness, too lazy to do anything? which is it?

Crusader's avatar

@eponymoushipster,

Yes, epony I would use the accepted configuration, but your name is so very long…And, yes, I appreciate your opinion and biblical scholarship but do not share it. I am quite well versed. Far from a true scholar, but with daily reinforcement of the truth. Also, no chip here, just clarification. Good day.

eponymoushipster's avatar

@Crusader on a technical note, if you type the @ and the first letter or two of a name, a dropdown list appears (unless, you’re on a phone, which i’m guessing you’re not)

Crusader's avatar

@eponymoushipster

Thanks for the tip. Good advice. After the first time, its all gravy..I appreciate it.

Jiminez's avatar

@Crusader I am sure I have no idea what you are trying to say. And you spelled my name wrong.

dannyc's avatar

If you really care whether a politician is gay or not, then you need to reevaluate your vision of what makes a person tick..their sexual preference, except in extreme cases has almost nothing to do with their competency. Thus the question, if one is truly not homophobic, should be nobody’s business to ask. Take a pill, chill and enjoy the thrill of accepting all for who they are.

Crusader's avatar

@dannyc
Homosexuality is a natural act, just as many animals engage in such behavior, so do many animalistic humans. Humans are created in Gods image, God wants us to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ in his natural fashion, man and woman. The two balance on another. Furthermore, homosexuals will align with other homosexuals and foreigh powers who are decidedly against such behavior in their own countries, but see advantge in undermining the social conservative values of America-to replace with the Ultra conservative, racist, masogynistic hypocrite values of their own country/religion. No tto mention abbregating a generational sense of values in the leadership, (not offspring,)Thus Homosexuals in high government office is a security risk.

dannyc's avatar

If you could prove that humans are created in God’s image, I would be fascinated to see it detailed. No man knows the mind of God, so your hypothesis that you do indeed know seems flawed. God, if the concept really exists in the superiority you envisage, would be too smart to actually hold a person accountable for what they are. It is simply illogical. To think homosexuals are dangerous is ridiculous. Clinton, for example,who I thought was a good president, was a philandering rogue fellow . Judge not, and ye shall not be judged, I remember reading somewhere.

benjaminlevi's avatar

@Crusader I really don’t see why homosexuals as a group would be any more racist, conservative, or misogynistic then heterosexuals. You need to back up the things you say, not everyone automatically believes what they read

Crusader's avatar

@dannyc
Your prove my point about zealously opposing any belief system, regardless of its effectiveness and the degree to which those have adopted it worldwide have enjoyed prosperity and freedom, (especially relative to most other societies,)for the sake of political expediency and personal aggrandizement, yes, homosexuals are ‘special’ now, ‘untouchable’, literally and figuratively, and protected bodily and ecomonically, advanced as if they were generation of oppressed people, which, by definition, is impossible because two homosexuals cannot have children and sexual preference is just that, preference. Now it is preference for Profit. It is the degree to which homosexuals will justify their ‘special’ status and chosen lifestyle that is dangerous, as is the associations with any who will solidify this position, foreign national America Hater, or domestic America Hater. Your Clinton was a Democrat, his wife probably bi-sexual, they do not even live together, the marriage is a sham, one expects such unrepentant behavior from liberals. Strange that you would use your advocate as an example, or did Clinton not go far enough to Empower you and yours at the expence of white protestants?
Lastly, I accept my judgement, will you accept yours when the time comes? We are all accountable for our actions/behavior in this life, we will all be judged after.

@benjaminlevi
I did not say what you implied me as saying. My statement indicated that homosexuals would align themselves with any who would advance them as a group as the expense of straights, straight white protestant men in particular, for now…Adolf Hitlers rise to power was orchestrated by a homosexual man, Roehme, and many homosexual militant allies of his, they were the SSA. Same result Very likely in the US. Whites will be the primarly target, then…who knows? How is that for a supportive historical framework?

dannyc's avatar

Well, being a Canadian I have little to do with Clinton’s election, though I think he was better President than most. His behaviour in his personal life is irrelevant to me. I would make the suggestion that homosexuals have been very persecuted and I think wrongly so. If that makes them special, so be it . But I do respect your opinion as you have expressed it with passion. If I am judged for believing honestly what I believe, then I accept it with relish, no regrets.

Crusader's avatar

@dannyc

Please stop using Clinton as an example of a rogue and then saying the talking point that ‘his personal life did not make any difference,’ just ridiculous, but predictable.

What do you know of his effectiveness as a president other than what the media informs you? Liberal oligarchy Canadian media at that. In terms of persecution, it is Not generational, and it is a Personal Preference, Not defined as a ‘sufferage’ group. Plenty of examples of homosexuals perpetrating the persecutions too, throughout history, what is your point? I believe they should be protected from violent Hate, but nothing more. And yes, I respect you position, though I most certainly do not share the ‘special’ status belief.

dannyc's avatar

We do get the news in Canada, in fact flooded with American news, thus I am capable of forming an opinion on a president. Actually the Conservatives are in power in Canada, just to correct that notion. Clinton’s rogueness is, as I stated inconsequential, thus my logic does follow, assuming I believed he was a good president. His wife being bisexual, is also irrelevant to me. There are countless hate crimes that have been committed on homosexuals throughout the world in the past, thus they have previously feared to reveal their sexual identity. Thus they have without a doubt been discriminated against and It fits my definition of a group who have and apparently continue to be oppressed. Many countries have ended that chapter. In my opinion, and in many of your States it is also ending. I believe you will eventually lose your definition of same sex marriage to what seems fine for a growing part of the globe. We may all be damned in your opinion, but my prediction is you will still not have your position prevail.

Blondesjon's avatar

“Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.”—Mohandas Gandhi

Crusader's avatar

I believe you believe you can have an informed position as who should be president, but the reality is, brother, that even many Americans are genuinly misinformed. Only those with considerable knowledge of complex political and economic issues can even Begin to justify conservativism, and the vast majority of such thinkers are on the Left, as the education system lends itself to such, and there of no liberal hypocrites, it is a ‘religion’ of anything goes. one conservative hypocrite justifies (in the mind of liberals,) the erradication of the entire Party, the entire Ideology. Yes, you have some conservatives in power in Canada, but the operational definition of such is more like a centrist in America with liberal leanings, true social conservativist principles in politics Do Not Exist in Canada. I have visited there, and found many to be very informed, and attractive physically, and quite clean and spacious. You do not need to compromise having it all already. America has many divisions, crowded cities, and entitlements only for liberal and self-described minority. Though there are many affluent white protestant families, this is still only about 3% of the population of whites. The vast majority are 2nd class citizens. Such entitlements are a strong motivator for homosexuals. And, as I have stipulated, one generation of homosexuals has Nothing to do with the other as they are Not Related by Blood, just lifestyle Choice. Thus the tolerant, equitable solution, protect them from hateful violence, and no more. All else is political expediency and hypocrisy.

Crusader's avatar

@Blondesjon

Yes, this is the same man who took advantage of the Empire that educated him, governed with much thoughtfulness and compassion his people, (though certainly not perfect, India was Much more prosperous after colonialism and many citizens in UK and educated there, then before,) Immediately during and after the WWII, and, whose principles of selflessness and sacrifice led to the implementation of his family as the New Autocrats after his death? Also, he negotiated Pakistan for Islam, now a nuclear power that Hates liberty for its own people and a viable threat to the West? Could his families rise in power and wealth and that brokering the major concession be connected?

Also, he is quoted as saying,

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians seem to be so unlike your Christ.”

Of Course Christians are unlike, they are not Perfect Beings.
Ghandi was a self-aggrandizing Fakir in Robes, Winston Churchill said it, he recongnized an opportunist wolf in sheeps clothing when he saw one.

Blondesjon's avatar

“It is not the body’s posture, but the heart’s attitude that counts when we pray.”—Billy Graham

Crusader's avatar

@Blondesjon

True. A good quote, a good man.

Blondesjon's avatar

@uberbatmanhe’s an angel compared to this douche.

CMaz's avatar

Ted Kennedy

benjaminlevi's avatar

@ChazMaz… so thats why he left his girlfriend to drown?

CMaz's avatar

LOL!! That about sums it up!

lefteh's avatar

Groan…

dpworkin's avatar

I think the politicians who preen about being against the so-called gay agenda, and who deny people fundamental rights based on sexual orientation are most likely to be closeted gays.

CMaz's avatar

Barack Obama

dpworkin's avatar

Yet another thoughtful post from @ChazMaz.

MissA's avatar

I’ve read a relatively small portion of the answers…and, I have a question. I am serious, please tell me why this question wasn’t moved to social? How does it fit being in general. I thought that I had things figured out, but I guess that I don’t.

MissA's avatar

I just saw that it is an old thread from May of 2009. I try to make it a habit not to look at the date, so that I treat questions the same. I’m not sure that I would have answered, if I would have seen that it was that old. Maybe leaving it in general was an OP mistake. By the way, I get what an OP does, I just don’t know what the acronym stands for.

jazmina88's avatar

“let ye who is without sin cast the first stone.”

This is 2000 years later and no reason to be sterile. We are put here on this Earth to be human…...sex, breathing,living. not to stand on a soapbox like you are spotless.

I’d drather have a politician who knows what it’s like to be in the real world, than be a judgmental holy than thou hyprocrite.

MissA's avatar

As for answering the question (!)...

I will not lend any credibility to the question. I’d feel the same way @Jiminez, if someone posted a question asking me if I had a suspicion that you jerked off while watching CNN through your neighbor’s window.

jazmina88's avatar

Crusader left our oceans…....

dpworkin's avatar

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to suspect homophobic members of Congress who repeatedly vote against the Gay agenda to be self-loathing homosexuals.

MissA's avatar

@dpworkin I agree…privately. We could sit here and make a pretty long list.

However, to roast someone publicly on a hunch only is crude and perhaps, damaging. Now, if that person is caught, well…that’s a different set of stemware.

I wish everyone would step up to the plate and just BE who they say they are. Be characters (good or not-so)...but, let us endorse you for who you are, instead of what you want us to believe you to be.

Have balls, not Christmas ornaments.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther