Posted on 04/30/2016 1:28:16 PM PDT by massmike
John Kasich on Friday was pressed by a man in California to answer whether or not he believed people are born gay.
"Do you believe that some people are born gay?" asked Kelly Bryan, 62, of San Francisco, who attended the Commonwealth Club of California event where Kasich was the featured guest. He later described himself as a Democrat who plans to vote for Hillary Clinton.
"Please respond without prayer being an answer."
Kasich first tried to dodge an answer. "I'm not gonna get into all the analysis of this or that, I'm not gonna do that," he said. As the moderator tried to move the conversation along to the next question, Kasich bounced back. "You know, sir, probably. I mean, I don't, I don't know how it all works, okay? I mean, look. Are they? You know, probability they are. Okay?"
.
After the event, Bryan, who said he was a member of the Commonwealth Club of California and regularly attends their events, told NBC News that he didn't expect a very different answer from Kasich, who he called an "awful candidate."
"I simply wanted it to be answered that gay people are born gay and that it is not a lifestyle or chosen because why would anyone choose to be gay?" he asked, adding, "He had to cop to saying, gay people are, his word, 'probably are born that way' and that was probably the winningiest point and that was my first question."
Earlier this month, during a stirring back-and-forth at an MSNBC town hall with Chris Matthews, Kasich stated that he supports "moving on" from the debate over gay marriage, saying of the current laws on the books, "exactly where it is now, I'm fine with it."
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
+ 1
What do homosexuals say about that fact?
Good point.
One person wants to die and aother wants to kill them. That is not legal despite both wanting it.
Fraud schemes such as one persn wants to claim another as a dependent, and the other is willing, but they legally cannot.
Straw gun purchases. Felon wants gun, other wiling adult will consen to buy - not legal, but a felony.
Person not legally allowed to drive due to court but wants to, and friend offers their car to them - both consenting but ilegal.
Any two adults conspiring to willfuly commit crimes together - both consenting, but not legal.
Quite a few of them deal with it by shunning alcohol all together.
Bing is currently running an article saying that “killers” are also “born that way” now. I guess Obonzo better let them all out of prison and let them use the ladies room.
Also examples.
Husband wife insurance fraud scheme. Husband fakes death, wife collects. Both consenting, yet illegal.
Non 21 adult person asks adult stranger to buy alcohol for them and they agree. Consenting yet illegal.
Pperson wants to buy drugs, another wants to sel the, drugs. Both consenting, yet illegal.
All of those except the first and third involve crimes against other people. The third is a crime because of the felon’s previous crime, in effect a continuation of punishment for that crime.
The first really shouldn’t be a crime IMHO. Our lives belong to us, not the state. Fortunately the vast majority of Americans don’t want the government deciding what kind of sex is legal between consenting adults. If the government can decide that, they can dictate any behavior they want.
Our own coutry’s history from 1620 til current awfulness proves you wrong.
States and fedgov had sodomy and homosexuality illegal criminal acts and there was no gaystapo police pounding down people’s doors. Or peering into bedrooms.
The positive idiot.
I said we outlaw stuff all the time two consenting adults do, and gave you examples. Of course some hurt others and some do not. That is immaterial. Consent means noting if we have decided certain tjings are illegal and for the vast majority of America those sex acts were deemed serious illegal criminal acts. Rightly so.
Whether or not both were willing.
Sexual perversion is a crime against society. It weakens the moral foundations of a nation. Why do you think the communist manifesto explicitly had stared goals to weaken the country by getting homosexuality and other sexual perversion to be considered normal.
And in the 1950s on they did act to get it decriminalized and they succeeded. But for over 340 years almost everyone in this country lived with it being a sex crime and caled it what it is.
So your argument is that it’s OK to have such laws because they generally aren’t enforced? The vast majority of Americans, including most conservatives don’t want that. In fact proposing it just plays into the hands of the radical homosexual activists.
In any case, your original question conflated crimes against others like rape with voluntary sex between adults. You suggested there is a contradiction between having that legal, and rape or child molestation illegal. There is no such contradiction.
No, i was saying that because people like you tink that is what government is going to do if those laws return. It will not and people were only generally discovered because they were overt about it.
Its like the gun idiots who say if we let people conceal carry the wild west will return. It has not happened anywhere. And the govt will not be oppressive about these laws either because thats not the history we have in this country with this kind of law. People generally only ran afol of these laws actually trying to solicit others. That is when something got checked out.
And friend, all laws are not equally enforced, but that doesnt mean not to have the lessser enforced or differently enforced laws. Cmon - just an awful, awful argument.
Just remember, the government that can decide who you can screw can screw you whenever they want to.
Actually they cant. They never have. No govt agent has ever stopped people doing it. They may have after the fact punished them for it.
I’m marrried. They have yet to send me a letter about any of my sexual activity, and they wouldnt do that to anyone else if these laws were back on the books.
But since you dont get it and thats your conclusion after all I have written, I will simply say we don’t hold the same views here and let’s just move on.
Scripture calls those who commit acts of sodomy abominations rather than those who might be routinely tempted to it due to imperfections and disorders of the flesh.
I sure hope I get to have a 'ring' side seat when this kind of Scripture interpretations gets judged. Notice my tagline... Lot's wife was not a participant in Sodom, but she paid the ultimate price for turning back. Personally, this 'born' that way speaks to the state of the 'soul/spirit' intellect... not some flesh birth defect. Scripture also says things would be worse than Sodom...
Many are truly sick because of what others did to them.
Then there's the hedonistic sickos that push all the agendas - I thank God for being my guide (for the big issues - I'm still flawed enough to ignore His guidance in so much else) or I would have to call for their extermination.
And, assuming that general consensus agrees that sexual molestation results in a change in the person to some degree, I can specifically state that, from my youngest memories of my brother, from when I was about five or six and he would have been three, he was always the same. No sign of any trauma or change in attitudes or presentation.
Of course, I may be wrong, but I just don't see how.
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.