mikeyinbrooklyn
Legendary Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2006
- Posts
- 1,196
- Media
- 77
- Likes
- 1,132
- Points
- 333
- Location
- DuBois (Pennsylvania, United States)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I have no idea if Congressman Schock is gay or not. And, if he was in fact found in the shower with another man, that would seem to prove it (although, at this point, it is not proven; reference to an anonymous someone else catching an unnamed figure in a compromising situation wouldn't qualify as "evidence"). I would also think that CBS reporters would have a professional obligation not to spin rumors; if newsworthy, the reporter would be instructed by an editor to sit on the story until evidence emerges (which could include a witness going on the record), at which point it could be reported. That having been said a Congressman's being gay isn't quite the bombshell it once was. There have been multiple openly gay members in both parties.
I still feel that outing celebrities is wrong (even if true; rumors, about sexuality and other things, are not always true). In the end, it makes enemies of people. People won't decide to support gay rights because they fear being outed or exposed in some way; they will be for gay rights when they think we are nice, normal people, and that we don't pose an existential threat to traditional values. Humiliating someone publicly doesn't exactly scream "non-threatening." And, as always, someone's sexuality is there own business. Your politics don't warrant an intrusion into someone else's bedroom, regardless of their politics or bedroom activities. Even in situations when you feel someone is "anti-gay" or against you or a cause you believe in, it is wrong.
Full disclosure, as I have stated before when this site veers into politics, I am politically conservative with a libertarian bent, and would probably vote with Mr. Schock more often than most people here at LPSG would. I disagree with him on a number of issues, particularly some gay rights issues. The Defense of Marriage Act was a silly, unconstitutional law the moment it was passed and signed. Most politicians in both parties voted for it, and it was signed by President Clinton. Why? Did the Constitution change between then and now? No. Public opinion did. Most politicians do the politically expedient thing most of the time. When most people opposed gay marriage in the mid-90's, nearly everyone was on board with that law. Now, a majority are for legal gay marriage, so more and more politicians are on board with that. That trend will continue unabated, happily. When I was first advocating gay marriage, in the 90's, my liberal gay friends actually didn't support it: they supported abolishing marriage entirely. Opinions change, though, and I didn't and don't ascribe evil motives to people that disagree with me.
I am also not in favor of ENDA- I favor property rights & freedom of association just as much as gay rights. Sexual freedoms are not the only ones in need of protection. If you own a business, I think you should be able to hire/fire whomever you damn well please, not subject to the outside world's approval. The world is free to decide whether or not to patronize your business.
While I know some people here would love to catch Aaron Schock in the shower with Aaron Rodgers, I'll wait until they choose to announce their relationship publicly. And I will make reasoned arguments for my political beliefs, not sit around hoping that scandal will advance a legislative agenda. Extortion & shame make for a bad foundation upon which to build a house.
I still feel that outing celebrities is wrong (even if true; rumors, about sexuality and other things, are not always true). In the end, it makes enemies of people. People won't decide to support gay rights because they fear being outed or exposed in some way; they will be for gay rights when they think we are nice, normal people, and that we don't pose an existential threat to traditional values. Humiliating someone publicly doesn't exactly scream "non-threatening." And, as always, someone's sexuality is there own business. Your politics don't warrant an intrusion into someone else's bedroom, regardless of their politics or bedroom activities. Even in situations when you feel someone is "anti-gay" or against you or a cause you believe in, it is wrong.
Full disclosure, as I have stated before when this site veers into politics, I am politically conservative with a libertarian bent, and would probably vote with Mr. Schock more often than most people here at LPSG would. I disagree with him on a number of issues, particularly some gay rights issues. The Defense of Marriage Act was a silly, unconstitutional law the moment it was passed and signed. Most politicians in both parties voted for it, and it was signed by President Clinton. Why? Did the Constitution change between then and now? No. Public opinion did. Most politicians do the politically expedient thing most of the time. When most people opposed gay marriage in the mid-90's, nearly everyone was on board with that law. Now, a majority are for legal gay marriage, so more and more politicians are on board with that. That trend will continue unabated, happily. When I was first advocating gay marriage, in the 90's, my liberal gay friends actually didn't support it: they supported abolishing marriage entirely. Opinions change, though, and I didn't and don't ascribe evil motives to people that disagree with me.
I am also not in favor of ENDA- I favor property rights & freedom of association just as much as gay rights. Sexual freedoms are not the only ones in need of protection. If you own a business, I think you should be able to hire/fire whomever you damn well please, not subject to the outside world's approval. The world is free to decide whether or not to patronize your business.
While I know some people here would love to catch Aaron Schock in the shower with Aaron Rodgers, I'll wait until they choose to announce their relationship publicly. And I will make reasoned arguments for my political beliefs, not sit around hoping that scandal will advance a legislative agenda. Extortion & shame make for a bad foundation upon which to build a house.
