Mayor Pete Buttigieg: ‘Think of Something Really Gay — That’s How Gay I Am’

[Free Vulcan]

Thanks for that Buttgigger, we were all waiting to hear you talking about how gay your gayness is.

[mountaineer]

I have no reason to doubt that Pete Buttigieg is a man of Christian faith.   And, from what I can see,  he lives his life consistent with his faith. 

Living life consistent with the Christian faith includes acknowledging Biblical directives on sin. The Bible unequivocally states that homosexual behavior is a sin. Has Mayor Pete acknowledged that teaching? From what you can see, do you suppose he and his "spouse" refrain from sexual relations in order to life their lives consistent with their Christian faith?

There is a distinction between sexual orientation (having a desire for same-sex activity), whether or not God made you that way, and resisting that temptation in order to be obedient to Scripture. The same is true of any sin, as defined by God in His word: resisting the temptation to steal, drink to excess, gossip, swindle or defraud, commit adultery, lie, and so forth.

[QueenCatofAragon]

I know Trump said something like that,  but deep down he knows what he does is not aligned with God's plan.   Buttwipe rebels against God by thinking his lifestyle is what God intended for him.

@dfwgator

There’s absolutely no evidence to support that, so how do you know it?

[dfwgator]

@dfwgator

There’s absolutely no evidence to support that, so how do you know it?

Ok, so maybe I don't know what's in Trump's heart.   But we sure know what is in Buttcrack's.

[QueenCatofAragon]

Ok, so maybe I don't know what's in Trump's heart.   But we sure know what is in Buttcrack's.

Well, yeah, but how does that affect Trump?  Look, he's the same man he always was.  Nobody cares about politicians' morals now.  That's just where we are, as a statement of fact.

[truth_seeker]

The Rev. King believed homosexuals needed psychological help.

I think in his time, hmosexuality was felt to be abnormal.

Homosexuality and other gender abnormalities today,are celebrated like a popular fad.


I have never been in favor of beating the crap out of them. Nor do I favor rewarding them like it is entirely normal.


There's a gay man, and there is a lesbian couple living in my hood, for decades.

I believe their neighbors would protect their right to live unharmed. I believe equally their neighbors would become concerned if teens were hanging around them.


IOW no soliciting, no grooming, no promoting.

[Smokin Joe]

Keeping one's word is not inconsistent with the "societal norms of the Judeo-Christian tradition."    Put another way,  how is arbitrarily refusing to provide an advertised service because you don't like the cut of the customer's jib consistent with the "societal norms of the Judeo-Christian tradition"?

To me, the essence of that tradition is the golden rule - not being a arsehole by turning away a customer out of some ego-driven conceit that I'm God's Own Enforcer.         

Fine, just try advertising that you only bake cakes for heterosexual weddings. and watch the sh*t fly.

If they were just going to do their thing in private, how come we hear about it incessantly.

[goatprairie]

Fine, just try advertising that you only bake cakes for heterosexual weddings. and watch the sh*t fly.

If they were just going to do their thing in private, how come we hear about it incessantly.

The principle remains the same: no customer has the right to demand a business bake/manufacture some product a certain way. A business reserves the constitutional right to make their products the way they want to make them without being forced make them differently.
No customer can tell a business person what it can make/manufacture.
It doesn't matter if it is wedding cakes or some widget.
"I demand you manufacture my widget a certain way because you make them certain ways for other customers" says a  customer.
"Jam your request up your hindquarters" says the businessman,  "I'll make whatever I want to make without being forced by robbers with government guns."
Which is what homosexual activists are when they demand cakes be specially baked for them.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Well, yeah, but how does that affect Trump?  Look, he's the same man he always was.  Nobody cares about politicians' morals now.  That's just where we are, as a statement of fact.

It may be a statement of "fact", but it is a blatantly untrue fact.  Perhaps some people don't care about politicians morals, but the claim that nobody does is absurd.  At a bare minimum, from some of the criticisms I've read about Trump, it is clear that at least some people care about his morals.

But more broadly, it's not that people don't care about a politician's morals.  It's just that they don't believe a politician's individual morality should outweigh every other consideration.

If one politician would make horrible policy decisions that would take the entire country down a terrible path, but has impeccable individual morality, and the other is a moral reprobate but whose policies would be much better for the country, who should we support?

And I understand that may not be how you see Trump's policies, but others do.  And they're the ones you're accusing of "not caring" about a politician's morals. 

[QueenCatofAragon]

It may be a statement of "fact", but it is a blatantly untrue fact.  Perhaps some people don't care about politicians morals, but the claim that nobody does is absurd.  At a bare minimum, from some of the criticisms I've read about Trump, it is clear that at least some people care about his morals.

But more broadly, it's not that people don't care about a politician's morals.  It's just that they don't believe a politician's individual morality should outweigh every other consideration.

If one politician would make horrible policy decisions that would take the entire country down a terrible path, but has impeccable individual morality, and the other is a moral reprobate but whose policies would be much better for the country, who should we support?

And I understand that may not be how you see Trump's policies, but others do.  And they're the ones you're accusing of "not caring" about a politician's morals.

@Maj. Bill Martin

Oh, just calm down.  I really didn’t expect to be taken literally when I said “nobody”, but since it happened, here’s the disclaimer: it was a figure of speech.  Amazing that I have to explain it.

Wrong.  The issue is absolutely that *some* (there you go) don’t give a rip about his morals.  Honestly, I have to wonder if you’ve been paying attention.  I’ve seen it stated outright, for years now—“who cares what he does in his personal life as long as he runs the country well?”  So please, don’t bother trying to tell me that’s not a thing.

 You’re doing pretty much the same thing when you imply you’d vote for a “moral reprobate” who could make the trains run on time.  I have news for you.  That’s not how you achieve success as a nation.  Unless maybe you think God has checked out and gone to the Bahamas for the duration.

You “understand” zero about my policy opinions,  but you aren’t the first to let emotionalism over Trump rob you of the ability to understand that those views can exist apart from Trump veneration.
The line forms over there. ➡️

[aligncare]

It may be a statement of "fact", but it is a blatantly untrue fact.  Perhaps some people don't care about politicians morals, but the claim that nobody does is absurd.  At a bare minimum, from some of the criticisms I've read about Trump, it is clear that at least some people care about his morals.

But more broadly, it's not that people don't care about a politician's morals.  It's just that they don't believe a politician's individual morality should outweigh every other consideration.

If one politician would make horrible policy decisions that would take the entire country down a terrible path, but has impeccable individual morality, and the other is a moral reprobate but whose policies would be much better for the country, who should we support?

And I understand that may not be how you see Trump's policies, but others do.  And they're the ones you're accusing of "not caring" about a politician's morals.

Bingo. The exact point Dennis Prager has been using to explain the Trump presidency. Historical examples abound of good policy decisions made by moral reprobates in office—and, vice versa.

So I hope I can be forgiven for not condemning a president who’s iconic life has been an open book and has been featured on countless shows, magazines and tabloids. And none of it has ever shown Trump to be either racist, or misogynistic, or traitorous, or dictatorial, or any of the Left’s boogeymen.

But, what it does show is a man who is a fierce and ambitious—and successful—business competitor. The exact skills and traits needed for a president to MAGA. Of course, truth is he can only make a small dent in the problems of DC. The rest of it has to be picked up in the future with the only army we got, and that’s the Republican Party.   

[dfwgator]

Well, yeah, but how does that affect Trump?  Look, he's the same man he always was.  Nobody cares about politicians' morals now.  That's just where we are, as a statement of fact.

If not Trump, then who else?   And I mean somebody else who even wants the job in the first place?

[QueenCatofAragon]

If not Trump, then who else?   And I mean somebody else who even wants the job in the first place?

I don't know.  I'm not suggesting someone else, I'm just taking note of the fact that Trump is Trump, and he wasn't born the day he rode down that escalator. 

Looking back at 2016, there were a few guys on the debate stage who would have been okay, IMO--Cruz, Walker, Paul, Rubio.  But that's in the history books.  I think we need to be very careful in selecting the person who leads the nation.

[QueenCatofAragon]

Bingo. The exact point Dennis Prager has been using to explain the Trump presidency. Historical examples abound of good policy decisions made by moral reprobates in office—and, vice versa.

So I hope I can be forgiven for not condemning a president who’s iconic life has been an open book and has been featured on countless shows, magazines and tabloids. And none of it has ever shown Trump to be either racist, or misogynistic, or traitorous, or dictatorial, or any of the Left’s boogeymen.

But, what it does show is a man who is a fierce and ambitious—and successful—business competitor. The exact skills and traits needed for a president to MAGA. Of course, truth is he can only make a small dent in the problems of DC. The rest of it has to be picked up in the future with the only army we got, and that’s the Republican Party.   

Honestly I've never seen such naked, wide-eyed awe for one grown man from another.  It's cringe-worthy.

[mountaineer]

Geez, once again a thread about something NOT Trump turns into a Trump squabble.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin
 You’re doing pretty much the same thing when you imply you’d vote for a “moral reprobate” who could make the trains run on time. 

Given a choice in an election between a moral reprobate who will appoint justices more likely to be pro-life, and a paragon of moral virtue who would appoint pro-abortion justices, I'll vote for the reprobate every time.

That doesn't mean that personal moral conduct does not matter to me.  It simply means it is not the highest priority on my list when voting.  Is it the highest on yours, or can you envision a scenario where you would vote for someone with more personal moral failings over an opponent who has greater individual moral virture, but worse policies?

To put it differently, if Buttigieg was pro-life, a defender of the Second Amendment and individual liberty, pro-small government, tough on immigration, etc., I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over someone like Kasich, who may not go in through the out door, but otherwise would be a disaster for the country.

[dfwgator]

Given a choice in an election between a moral reprobate who will appoint justices more likely to be pro-life, and a paragon of moral virtue who would appoint pro-abortion justices, I'll vote for the reprobate every time.

That doesn't mean that personal moral conduct does not matter to me.  It simply means it is not the highest priority on my list when voting.  Is it the highest on yours, or can you envision a scenario where you would vote for someone with more personal moral failings over an opponent who has greater individual moral virture, but worse policies?

To put it differently, if Buttigieg was pro-life, a defender of the Second Amendment and individual liberty, pro-small government, tough on immigration, etc., I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over someone like Kasich, who may not go in through the out door, but otherwise would be a disaster for the country.

My problem with gays is not what they do in the bedroom,  it's that almost every single one of them is completely moonbatty liberal.  That being said, I do know a few gay people who are mostly Conservative,  and they tell me they are more comfortable being around Conservatives than around other gay people who know their political leanings.


And WE'RE supposed to be the intolerant ones!

[aligncare]

Honestly I've never seen such naked, wide-eyed awe for one grown man from another.  It's cringe-worthy.

At Cornell university they have an incredible piece of scientific equipment known as the tunneling electron microscope. Now, this microscope is so powerful that by firing electrons you can actually see images of the atom—the infinitesimally minute building block of our universe.

@QueenCatofAragon if I were using that microscope right now, I still wouldn’t be able to locate my interest in your opinion of me.

[QueenCatofAragon]

At Cornell university they have an incredible piece of scientific equipment known as the tunneling electron microscope. Now, this microscope is so powerful that by firing electrons you can actually see images of the atom—the infinitesimally minute building block of our universe.

@QueenCatofAragon if I were using that microscope right now, I still wouldn’t be able to locate my interest in your opinion of me.

I don’t believe you, @aligncare.  You took a bit of time and trouble to tell me how much you don’t care, so I guess a nerve was struck.

You still in the massage business?

[Mod1]

Please stay on topic, which is the fella on the right.

[aligncare]

I don’t believe you, @aligncare.  You took a bit of time and trouble to tell me how much you don’t care, so I guess a nerve was struck.

You still in the massage business?

Yes, true, you caught me. But, as your response here demonstrates, you’re understandably, blissfully, unaware of the hundreds—nay, thousands—of your postings that are ignored by me, and by many others, as routine blather.

[aligncare]

Please stay on topic, which is the fella on the right.

Okay, well, Buttigieg announced at a campaign rally that he doesn’t like @QueenCatofAragon either. No, it’s true.

See? We can stay on topic if forced to.

[Restored]

I think he may be bucking  to be Biden's VP but I can't imagine running two white men after running Obama and Hillary. It would deemed MAWA!

[QueenCatofAragon]

Yes, true, you caught me. But, as your response here demonstrates, you’re understandably, blissfully, unaware of the hundreds—nay, thousands—of your postings that are ignored by me, and by many others, as routine blather.

Oh, @aligncare, lol.  You don’t ignore them.  You have a habit of responding to me indirectly by addressing your posts to someone else in the thread, a passive-aggressive tactic straight out of middle school.  You just did it again.  All the time thinking it’s not obvious and you’re being slick.  😂

[QueenCatofAragon]

Okay, well, Buttigieg announced at a campaign rally that he doesn’t like @QueenCatofAragon either. No, it’s true.

See? We can stay on topic if forced to.

@aligncare

I’m not seeing the negative here, lol.  Are you going somewhere with this?