http://news.msn.com/us/perry-discusses-view-of-homosexuality

I've heard rumblings this idiot could be a viable Republican candidate in '16. This is the reason people that the majority voted for Obama in '12...the Republican alternative was even scarier. Now its come to pass that Obama is exactly what I thought he would be...ineffective. Lack of experience combined with virtually non-existent insider alliances "across the aisle" have rendered him pretty much useless. Until the Bergdahl fiasco I didn't really consider him particularly detrimental to America but not helpful either.

However, if the Rebublicans go down the path with guys like Perry and other Tea Party Nut Jobs, get ready for another 4 yrs of Democratic place holding.

Why is homosexuality the discussion for presidency?

Agenda much?

ps: whether a Pub or Dem, probably not my guy. (Belly'd)

Tiernan;1625429 wrote:http://news.msn.com/us/perry-discusses-view-of-homosexuality

I've heard rumblings this idiot could be a viable Republican candidate in '16. This is the reason people that the majority voted for Obama in '12...the Republican alternative was even scarier. Now its come to pass that Obama is exactly what I thought he would be...ineffective. Lack of experience combined with virtually non-existent insider alliances "across the aisle" have rendered him pretty much useless. Until the Bergdahl fiasco I didn't really consider him particularly detrimental to America but not helpful either.

However, if the Rebublicans go down the path with guys like Perry and other Tea Party Nut Jobs, get ready for another 4 yrs of Democratic place holding.

I know that anytime someone says anything that is REMOTELY not 100% for the LBGTBLMNOP agenda, it is broadcasted as homophobic.

However, I have one question, what did he say that was so "radical"?

What he basically said was that he didn't know if counseling could help those homosexuals that wanted to live a straight lifestyle or not, but his state would allow them to try through therapy.

I mean really, he used a metaphor with alcoholism, which I'm SURE some libtards will stretch to say he is saying that homosexuality is a disease (which he did NOT say). He used it to show how alcoholism, while a thing that is believed/proven to be genetic (you are born with it) but yet something one doesn't want to live it, has been shown that different forms of therapy has worked to help people live life without drinking.

He was using the metaphor that if someone is a homosexual, something that is believed/proven to be genetic (born with it), and they choose to want to live a straight lifestyle they won't be denied therapy in their state to make that attempt.

And before someone says it is not possible to "switch" your lifestyle, I have personally seen it go both ways (heterosexuals become homosexuals and homosexuals become heterosexuals). The attraction might not be a choice, but the actions that follow certainly are.

I also don't see the huge problem with the metaphor. I would most certainly liken my attraction to women (heterosexual) to an alcoholics addiction to alcohol. I have a very addictive personality, have been addicted to video games in the past, sports in the past, even porn at times, and I would also say that my attraction to women is an addiction. It happens to be an addiction that I don't want to avoid however. If I can see in my self that this is an addiction, why would it be impossible for a homosexual to see in themselves an attractive addiction to the same sex? What if they don't WANT to live that lifestyle (I know a few who are homosexuals and do NOT want to be one)? What if there was a way through some sort of therapy and lifestyle choices that they could live a heterosexual lifestyle that they want?

I will say this, I know someone close in my life that is a homosexual (used to be heterosexual) and while has accepted her homosexuality and is living that lifestyle, does not want that lifestyle deep down.

I know someone else, really close in my life, that is a bisexual leaning toward homosexual but she wants a heterosexual lifestyle and is currently happily living that lifestyle, with her husband having full knowledge of her attractions/etc and working with her through the situations.

It is so close in my family in friends, multiple family/friends are either currently in, or have been in the past, the homosexual lifestyle that I FULLY believe in the rights of homosexuals (civil unions/marriages, discrimination, etc). However, this same set of family and friends that have gone through these changes have also proven to me that IF AND ONLY IF someone wants to live one lifestyle that is against their natural attractions/addictions, it most certainly can be done and be done happily/contently.

cruiser_96;1625442 wrote:Why is homosexuality the discussion for presidency?

Bravo! Bravo!

He said he didn't know with certainty about "homosexual psychological state" but his State would provide assistance in that area if desired by the individual. Seems like an honest and servant approach to me.

Interpretation in quotation is mine.

What I don't understand is why is lesbian addressed when gay would cover those individuals in the usage of LBGT. Couldn't it just be BGT?

Romney was a solid candidate (just not up to challenge Obama on the one thing he's good at - campaigning). Perry was an idiot, but the Repub bench is much deeper now probably, in part, because many of them weren't ready or simply unwilling to take on an incumbent with the media carrying his water.

Hey closet Tea Baggers...you can't "counsel" someone NOT to be Gay the same way you can't counsel someone NOT to be straight. Jmog quit hiding behind an encyclopedia reply of rhetoric claiming not to be homophobic, you're not fooling anybody with any common sense.

"Perry's comments to the Commonwealth Club of California came after Texas' Republican Convention on Saturday sanctioned platform language allowing Texans to seek voluntary counseling to "cure" being gay."

Is this a change? Are Texans currently banned from voluntarily seeking such counseling? If so, why?

And the media smear campaign on the leading Repub candidates begins! Did anyone or everyone expect it? C'mon admit it...we did.

Rick Perry is getting nowhere near the nomination for president with or without this comment.

Tiernan;1625477 wrote:Hey closet Tea Baggers...you can't "counsel" someone NOT to be Gay the same way you can't counsel someone NOT to be straight. Jmog quit hiding behind an encyclopedia reply of rhetoric claiming not to be homophobic, you're not fooling anybody with any common sense.

You have no idea what is possible. I never said they could be counseled to the point that their attraction completely changes, I don't know one way or the other. I said that with counseling they can CHOOSE to live one lifestyle that may go against their innate attraction.

There is is a vast difference in what I said and what you believe I said. Trust me, with the sheer number of friends and family members I have that are either currently homosexual, bisexual, or have been one of them, I would lose a lot of close relationships that I care about if I was "homophobic".

Like I said in my original post, as soon as someone has an opinion that doesn't fit the LBGTLMNOP agenda/lifestyle/viewpoint they are labeled a homophobe, bigot, etc by libtards. Congratulations, you proved me 100% right only 4 posts after mine.

Hey closet Tea Baggers...

You really don't understand the Tea Party, do you? You are either part of the left that actively seeks to discredit the Tea Party by misrepresenting their viewpoints, or you bought into that narrative.

First of all the Tea Party is a loose coalition of people who believe in fiscal responsibility and limited government...social issues and stances on social issues are not part of that agenda. Most certainly, some Tea party members are Christian Fundamentalists/social conservative, but that is not requisite, and anti gay stances are not true of all or even most Tea Party members.]

Here is an article that may help your understanding and keep you from being misled from your elitist, 'progressive' friends.

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/is-the-tea-party-nation-anti-gay/

HitsRus;1625725 wrote:You really don't understand the Tea Party, do you? You are either part of the left that actively seeks to discredit the Tea Party by misrepresenting their viewpoints, or you bought into that narrative.

Yeah, that seems to be a pretty common view from the Left. They especially like to use nutjobs, marginal candidates who attached themselves to the TEA Party to get a boost, to characterize the party. They also like to claim it's a racist reaction to Obama when they very much reject many of Bush's economic policies (many of which Obama put on steroids).

The other popular meme is TEA Party supporters taking govt handouts are stupid/hypocritical...as if one should turn down free money (which actually WOULD be stupid) just because they think they'd be better off under different fiscal/economic policy.

I don't attend Westbrook Baptist, blow up abortion clinics, call homosexuality a disease, teach my 10 yr old how to use a semi-automatic, seek ways to cut aid to seniors and disabled vets, vote No on school levys, support eradication of police, fire and teacher unions or reformation of environmental statutes therefore I'm not a Tea Bagger nor do I care to "better understand" the movement. I understand you pretty well, you remind me somewhat of a group that got started in Germany about 1935.

LOL....Tiernan hates TEA baggers and doesn't even realize he is one. Ohhhhhhhh, the irony.

I'm not a Tea Bagger nor do I care to "better understand" the movement

That's what happens when you swallow too much kool-aid. Understanding and truth go out the window.

you remind me somewhat of a group that got started in Germany about 1935.

Quoted for ridicule....
let's see....I should say, "You remind me somewhat of a group that got started in Russia at the turn of the 20th century."
LOL.

I don't attend Westbrook Baptist, blow up abortion clinics,

Again quoted for ridicule.

You just troll message boards instead.:RpS_w00t:

Conservative radicalism is much more scarier than Liberal ineffectiveness. Tea Baggers are the American Taliban.

Tiernan;1625805 wrote:Conservative radicalism is much more scarier than Liberal ineffectiveness. Tea Baggers are the American Taliban.

I won't go so far as compare them to the Taliban. But I agree with your original post on Perry and the fanatics in the Republican party.

^^^LOL... Like the democrats don't have any 'fanatics'...too funny.

Tiernan;1625805 wrote:Conservative radicalism is much more scarier than Liberal ineffectiveness. Tea Baggers are the American Taliban.

What's even more scarier is the thought control and propaganda spewed, aided and abetted by media that is supposed to be independent and encouraging to free thinking. That you have such a warped perception of what the tea party is about, and that you have no desire to even seek the truth is evidence of what I say is true. You have swallowed the kool aid that you've been fed, believing what you been told.... Good little sheep that you are.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1625820 wrote:I won't go so far as compare them to the Taliban. But I agree with your original post on Perry and the fanatics in the Republican party.

So the people who believe in fiscal responsibility, limited government, that taxes are too high, economic freedom, etc are radical? You can't be serious.

jmog;1625890 wrote:So the people who believe in fiscal responsibility, limited government, that taxes are too high, economic freedom, etc are radical? You can't be serious.

Sadly, in today's climate, that is radical.

Tiernan;1625805 wrote:Conservative radicalism ...

Isn't that by definition an oxymoron?

^^^ not if you drink deeply the kool aid.

Tiernan;1625805 wrote:Conservative radicalism is much more scarier than Liberal ineffectiveness. Tea Baggers are the American Taliban.

When the defenders of liberty and advocates of fiscal sanity come under attack from (supposed) fellow citizens, you know the republic is in serious, serious trouble.