I didn't say that. What I SAID, REPEATEDLY, is that the fact that most people are not gay does not mean that he can't represent them.
If you want to argue that homosexuality shows an exceptionally warped frame of mind, and thus, they should not be elected to congress, then we have an actual discussion.
I tend to disagree on a whole, but I am not completely unsympathetic to that point, (I don't think people that flaunt their sexuality and use their office as a platform to advance their own lifestyle, should serve if office) and it's a reasonable point.
But arguing that gay people shouldn't be elected simply because most of their constituents aren't gay is stupid. There may be reasons not to elect gay people, that isn't one of them.
Well pal, that's EXACTLY why this country is now well and truly f**ked up. Of COURSE we should be electing people who feel and believe as we, the overWHELMING majority of their constituents, believe.
Umm, that has what to do with what I said?
If you want to say that the overwhelming majority of people think that gay people shouldn't be elected to congress, you're flat out wrong. Perhaps they are wrong, but they don't believe that.
Most don't favor gay marriage, but that doesn't mean that they think they should automatically be written off for high office.
Don't even attempt your absurd "moral/sexual equivalency" argument of homosexuality vs. heterosexual couples' sexual escapades.
I'll attempt whatever I please. However, I didn't do that. AGAIN, you fail to understand: there is a difference between saying something should disqualify someone from serving in office because of what it is, and saying something should disqualify someone for office because most of their constituents don't share the same tastes.
To deny that gays in this country have become militant, have outright taken over Hollywood and large portions of the entertainment industry directly catering to our kids, that they have managed to convince the weak-minded and rudderless (you know........people like you) that "gee golly it's all ok; we're swell and normal and you should like us and BE like us or be labeled a homophobe"...is either a sick joke or an indication of just how asleep you have been the last 20 years.
I don't deny that a certain section of the gay population is 'militant', nor do I deny that many of them hold goals and have ideas that are not my own.
But hate-filled rants like this don't hurt them and make you a lesser person.
Homosexuals haven't taken over Hollywood any more then Jews have taken over the Banking Industry. Sure, there is a higher percentage of gays in Hollywood then in the general population, but that doesn't mean they've 'taken over' anything. Same for Jews in banking, or Hollywood, or whatever other industry they are accused of taking over.
I'm going to stop now. You're just flat out pissing me off.
I'll consider this a complement.
Smug enough, but still don't address my main point(s). You still think the average American is perfectly fine with having a gay man or woman representing them, and I say that to believe that, you either A) are smoking crack, or B) buy into what that tube in your living room is feeding you lock, stock, and barrel. I also do not believe that you have an understanding of a "representative Republic" in the slightest, but few do any more; can't hold that against you.
By the way....calling my words a "hate-filled rant" is an old liberal trick; one that I won't take. Take a stand and you're "hate-filled". Bovine feces.