Posted on 07/29/2006 3:41:46 PM PDT by Dane
Sexual orientation should not define us, say gay politicians
CanWest News Service; Montreal Gazette Published: Saturday, July 29, 2006
MONTREAL -- Openly gay politicians want to be known for their competence and not just for being gay.
This was one of the observations made by seven elected officials during workshop Friday at an international conference on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights being held in Montreal in conjunction with the first World Outgames.
The challenges, pitfalls and pluses of being a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender politician were discussed, as was the decision making process on when to come "out" in a political career.
Gathered on the dais were Svend Robinson, former Liberal MP from Burnaby, B.C., Agnes Maltais, member of the Quebec National Assembly, Georgina Byers, the world's first transsexual Member of Parliament in her native New Zealand, Ulrike Lunacek, an MP from Austria, Volker Beck, with the German government, Oras Tynkkynen, MP in Finland and Joke Swiebel, a former member of the Netherlands Labour party.
The Outgames are the largest sports gathering of gay, lesbian and transgendered athletes in the world, featuring more than 13,000 competitors from 111 countries.
Montreal Gazette
As, Mr. Hand said(Fast Times at Ridgemont High), what are you people on? Dope?
Then stop throwing it in our face.
These politicians should win an award for cognitive dissonance.
They are taking thier cues from hillary, who will say she should not be known for being a liberal democrat.
It's a perversion. They're all sexshel preverts!!
"Then stop throwing it in our face."
Here, here!
She should be known for being a communist.
So what should define them. Singing show tunes? Watching gladiator movies? Never missing a Cher concert?
Another example would be jesse jackson saying he shouldn't be known by the color of his skin, while he uses the color of his skin to extort money for his personal benefit.
The Victory Fund and Log Cabin Republicans have to sign a contract to qualify for the endorsement. Part of that contract includes a campaign advisor and agreement to support the GLAAD Community issues. Qualifying for the endorsement means you have to be openly gay.
Log Cabin Republicans and Victory Fund all belong the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation Community and they receive training on how to handle the Media:
Political Funding set up by David Mixner. David B. Mixner was a former adviser to President Clinton on gay issues.
Exactly! It's the "pride" part of Gay Pride that I have the most trouble with.
"MONTREAL -- Openly gay politicians want to be known for their competence and not just for being gay."
If they didn't tell us, we wouldn't know. And competent at what? Promoting the gay agenda?
Log Cabin leftists trying to steer the Republican party in the direction they want. A non-conservative direction.
Maybe the liberals are seeing the writing on the wall and that most voters in western countries are rejecting the homosexual agenda and as a desperate attempt are doing a john kerry, "I campaigned as a homosexual, before I denounced that my homosexuality is what I actually campaigned on".
The liberals just dig themselves a deeper hole with every word they say.
The love that dare not speak its name has become the love that won't shut the hell up.
People are defined by their acts and omissions, i.e. a thief is he who steals, a murderer by he who kills with malice aforethought, an adulterer by he who commits adultery, a perjurer by lying. The sodomite cannot escape the fact that their acts are bad in themselves.(No matter what a corrupt legislature declares.).
Not "politicians." Not "tall politicians." Not "liberal, left-wing loons of politicians."
But WE are the ones defining THEM.
Exactly. The enemy within.
Agreed. For a group of folks whose more vocal components have made a crusade of basing their uniqueness/forcing that uniqueness on the fact that they engage in homosexual sodomy, it's a telling statement that that some gays now claim that said sexual orientation should not define them.
Not "politicians." Not "tall politicians." Not "liberal, left-wing loons of politicians."
They then went on to spend an hour talking about their sexuality, concluding with a demand that the public see them as "just guys" instead of focusing on their sexuality.
What they mean, after finding that their pet causes lose by around 70% at the polls, is that you should vote for them on the basis of their position on international fishing treaties, and ignore the real reason they're running for office. It's kind of like when Howard Dean told southerners they needed to vote on issues rather than guns, God and gays. Basically, ignore our agenda, and vote for us anyway.
"Openly gay politicians want to be known for their competence and not just for being gay."
How about defining them for their ability to play leapfrog on the lawn and swallow the leader!
Fishing? I think I misread that the first time. I though it said something else.
How can you be competent when the entire moral/ethics realm is closed to you? You cannot render competent leadership when you do not know right from wrong/good from evil/moral from immoral.
The most important characteristic of political leadership is high moral character. It is impossible for homosexuals to possess high moral character.
So many issues that face our cultures have, at their foundation, a moral component that, properly understood, renders knowledge of the way forward an easy decision. Without this solid moral foundation, these issues are a chaos of confusion.
As a very wise man once said, "How can you remove the speck from your brother's eye when you have beam in your own eye?"
Good point.
Exactly. Then shut up about it!
Sorry, gay politicians, but you're wearing blinders. The act of 'coming out' already defines you. 'Coming out' is like wearing a sign that says 'I'm queer and I'm here.' How else can you possibly be defined? Coming out just makes it easier to score on that fast-track to degeneracy.
Why deceive yourselves into believing that people should view your interests, activities, and relationships as non-prurient when those who are on your side of the fence already know you're a deviant and pre-motivated and only but a few on the other side haven't found out yet?
Sorry, no sale -- now or ever.
I still say we should ALL SAY WE'RE GAY.....then there would be NO ISSUE.....what're they going to do? Make us prove it?
If they would just STFU about it, we wouldn't define them by their sexuality. As for defining them by their competence, since most of them are lefties, I don't think we need to say any more about their competence.
These days it's 'the love that won't shut the f*** up.'
When did that happen?
L
but lets not define them that way
LOL
Ah, they thought of that too. A large amount of states already are putting together task forces to end discrimination against people with mental illness.
These committees are going to evaluate everyone and everyone will be defined as mentally ill.
See how they level the playing ground?
If you are trying to say, being labeled doesn't make it real....I understand that (did I get it?)
But, these task forces are going to be setting up clinics in our childrens' schools. It they start drugging our children, that will make them dependents, therefore, mentally ill.
So a big 'pulleeeze'. . .
not to mention a 'gazillion' other ways Gays are determined to 'separate' themselves from the 'rest of us'. .
Works for me. So you are gay. Why...that's almost interesting.
Wait..not that you, Dane, are gay. But the guy in the article. His gayness bores me.
When did it happen? Well, I can tell you when it started to snowball: when the democrap party realized that the degeneracy group could be fawned over and become a voting bloc constituency for the democrap party, to repalce at least some of the millions of votes democrats 'defaulted' with their heinous championing of abortion on demand right up to the day of birth. Of course, democrats would turn on the homosexuals in a heartbeat if they start voting for pubbies in any significant numbers.
All righty then. Good luck with that.
I must say, you're doing a bang up job expanding people's perceptions of what defines y'all by your choice of venue.
They made it an issue in the first place by telling everyone they were gay.
Now they want it to go away?
That's like a young Gloria Steinem working at the Playboy mansion in a bunny suit and then slapping you for looking at her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.