Another Anti-Gay Republican gets caught out

[_subgenius]

Go for it. Like this topic, it’ll be a fine display of your lack of knowledge on the subject.

yes, "this topic". the one where you insist that a politician be judged by their sexuality and not their voting record....i agree that this is something for which i certainly lack in knkwledge.

[_aussieguy55]

If only the GOP supported gays-:
http://www.newnownext.com/19-republican ... x/12/2016/

Gays are accepted now. No need to hide in the closet. Embrace your sexuality even bisexualty

Remember I Cor 6:9 which the NRSV translates as "sodomites" was translated as "abusers of boys" by Martin Luther in his German translation.

https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3 ... 3zPPj1xB94

https://www.academia.edu/2507704/_An_Ar ... 10_723-729

[_canpakes]

Go for it. Like this topic, it’ll be a fine display of your lack of knowledge on the subject.

yes, "this topic". the one where you insist that a politician be judged by their sexuality and not their voting record....i agree that this is something for which i certainly lack in knkwledge.

I think that the real problem is your 'knkwledge' of the language. As example, you could try to show where I insist a politician be judged by their sexuality, as you claim. But you're going to fail in trying to do so.

In the meantime, you've posted this, in the past:

...homosexual behavior - being undesirable to society - should result in the denial of certain benefits.

Once again, your mendacity is on full display.

[_Gunnar]

Whatever the case may be, and to be fair in today's salacious gossip:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ldren.html

There's so much there that it's just better if you click on the link. She's, uh, quite the character and perhaps the DNC should look at a better Somali-American to represent the community...

- Doc

Also, in the interest of fairness, according to SNOPES, the most salacious claim in the link you provided--that she married her own brother in order to make him eligible for U.S. citizenship--is unproven and highly doubtful because if it were true that he was her sibling, he would have been automatically eligible for citizenship for the same reason she was when their parent became naturalized. Thus there would have been no reason for a sham marriage for him to gain citizenship.

Nevertheless, there have been and will continue to be numerous attempts by Republican opponents to attack her character and authenticity. These attacks by opponents, like all attacks on politicians of any political stripe by their political opponents, should be viewed with at least some skepticism and fact checking before taking them at face value.

[_subgenius]

...
Once again, your mendacity is on full display.

and once again, you find yourself agreeing with my position when politically convenient.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Whatever the case may be, and to be fair in today's salacious gossip:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ldren.html

There's so much there that it's just better if you click on the link. She's, uh, quite the character and perhaps the DNC should look at a better Somali-American to represent the community...

- Doc

Also, in the interest of fairness, according to SNOPES, the most salacious claim in the link you provided--that she married her own brother in order to make him eligible for U.S. citizenship--is unproven and highly doubtful.

That piece to me is the least problematic part of the article. Perhaps the rumor arose from the fact that often within dar-al-Islam adherents call each other brother and sister? Whatever the case may be,

she fled the Somalian civil war with her family in 1991 and lived for four years in a refugee camp in Kenya before immigrating to the U.S. in 1995. Omar’s mother died when she was 2, so she and her siblings were raised by her father and grandfather.

Anytime anyone overcomes those kinds of challenges and makes it to CONGRESS I think it's remarkable. Still, though. She has some serious issues that are reflecting poorly on the DNC.

- Doc

[Guest]

...
Once again, your mendacity is on full display.

and once again, you find yourself agreeing with my position when politically convenient.

You don't have any position stated, aside from believing that "...homosexual behavior - being undesirable to society - should result in the denial of certain benefits."

Interesting claim, except that you're unable to show that I would agree with that position in the context of this thread. That's your first failure.

Your second failure is your sudden disagreement with your own stated past position, for the sake of political expediency, while pretending that others are doing the same.

Your third failure is continuing to be dishonest about all of this, and in thinking that your dishonesty can dig you out of your hole.

I'll throw you another shovel if you really need one, but you seem to be making swift enough downward progress on your own. : )

[_aussieguy55]

"..homosexual behavior - being undesirable to society - should result in the denial of certain benefits."

https://www.lehmiller.com/blog/2013/3/1 ... y-sex.html

It seems many straight people should be denied certain benefits?

Only get Vaseline on prescription?

[_subgenius]

Interesting claim, except that you're unable to show that I would agree with that position in the context of this thread. That's your first failure.

Your second failure is your sudden disagreement with your own stated past position, for the sake of political expediency, while pretending that others are doing the same.

Your third failure is continuing to be dishonest about all of this, and in thinking that your dishonesty can dig you out of your hole.

I'll throw you another shovel if you really need one, but you seem to be making swift enough downward progress on your own. : )

First
In context, that conversation about marriage being a social benefit is a stretch to apply on any point here.
But, it still begs you to find relevance for that argument to this thread....or the OP....or the discussion at hand.
Second
My position is consistent on both fronts. Where is the alleged controversy between the two? How does my argument on gay marriage stand contrary to my position that a gay legislator is doing his job irregardless of his sexuality?...are you trying to equate being elected to office with getting a marriage tax deduction?
Please, edify the viewers.
Third
Please, show me the lie or else hold your tongue.

[_canpakes]

First
In context, that conversation about marriage being a social benefit is a stretch to apply on any point here.
But, it still begs you to find relevance for that argument to this thread....or the OP....or the discussion at hand.
Second
My position is consistent on both fronts. Where is the alleged controversy between the two? How does my argument on gay marriage stand contrary to my position that a gay legislator is doing his job irregardless of his sexuality?...are you trying to equate being elected to office with getting a marriage tax deduction?
Please, edify the viewers.

Reread the opening post.

“Since he took office in 2011, Tennessee state Rep. Bill Sanderson (R-Kenton) has voted repeatedly in favor of legislation designed to harm the LGBT community. During that same time period, the 59-year-old Sanderson has also been openly soliciting sex with much younger men on Grindr, a gay hook-up and dating app, both from his home in West Tennessee and in Nashville.

Sanderson’s campaign website states he “is proudly pro-life and pro-family … [and] is leading the charge to defend the rights of the unborn and preserve the values that have defined our families for generations,” adding that he “knows that our nation was founded on conservative, Christian values.”

The question is exactly about ‘the job’ he is doing.

In an ironic twist, your ‘argument on gay marriage‘, as manifests in the public sphere, is probably a contributing factor as to why Sanderson kept his activities hidden away from his voters ... and his wife.

Third
Please, show me the lie or else hold your tongue.

Are you posting? Then, done.