http://pageoneq.com/news/2006/fox_101006.html

Quote :

"Mike Rogers says more outings on blogACTIVE are on the way by PageOneQ Mike Rogers, blogACTIVE and PageOneQ.com editor and publisher, appeared Monday on FOX News' The O'Reilly Factor with host Bill O'Reilly. They discussed the effects the growing Mark Foley scandal, speculation around which O'Reilly described as "partisan nonsense." Rogers told O'Reilly that he has more members of Congress he will be reporting on as closeted and anti-gay before the election. "If the right wing thinks that homosexuality is tied to pedophilia, which we know is not true, what will they say in the next week or two when I release the names of other closeted gay members of Congress in the Republican Party?" Rogers asked the host. "It's going to happen. What will their response be?" he also asked. "I fear that the homosexual community in America is going to be damaged by this whole thing," O'Reilly stated, before asking Rogers if he agreed. "I think that America is able to tell the difference between gay men and closeted gay men who make unhealthy psychological decisions," replied Rogers. Rogers told O'Reilly that he will be releasing more names of closeted members of the Senate and House before election day. O'Reilly advised Rogers to "get on the issues," to which Rogers replied, "I am... and their hypocrisy.""

http://blogactive.com


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coaWMbpz9l8

10/11/2006 3:10:28 AM

this will work

10/11/2006 7:17:51 AM

Quote :

"Rogers told O'Reilly that he has more members of Congress he will be reporting on as closeted and anti-gay before the election."

So, he's going to out homosexuals for being gay...and out homophobics for not liking them?

That's kinda strange.

10/11/2006 7:21:14 AM

Quote :

"O'Reilly advised Rogers to "get on the issues," to which Rogers replied, "I am... and their hypocrisy.""

Actually it would be nice if both parties could focus on the issues.

10/11/2006 7:24:51 AM

this is concrete evidence that this is pure,100% politics....but....it will work

10/11/2006 7:26:05 AM

Quote :

"So, he's going to out homosexuals for being gay...and out homophobics for not liking them?"

No, he's going to out homosexuals that act homophobic in public.

10/11/2006 7:41:29 AM

It's more important that health care, social security, and high energy costs combined!1!1!1!!1

10/11/2006 7:49:14 AM

Quote :

""I fear that the homosexual community in America is going to be damaged by this whole thing," O'Reilly stated"

yes.... i'm sure O'Reilly has been very concerned about damage to the gay community in the past
http://mediamatters.org/items/200601050008
http://mediamatters.org/items/200606080003
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603210012
http://mediamatters.org/items/200506030007
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605090008
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605240007

10/11/2006 8:47:58 AM

lol, all the dems want this time around is power and revenge

10/11/2006 9:09:44 AM

basically...


and he is not outing them for acting homophobic...he is outing them for voting against the gay agenda...thats not the same thing as homophobic...there is nothing wrong with being gay but understanding that the constitution does not give gays the right to marry...most republicans understand this...and this idiot blogger is pissed about it...pure revenge..and pure politics

[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 9:17 AM. Reason : asdf]

10/11/2006 9:14:46 AM

^ Perhaps that's how he sells it and justifies it to himself. However, I just can't shrug off the gut instinct that by outing all these Congressmen, Rogers is fueling homophobia among conservatives and hurting the increasing tolerance for gay politicians for temporary gains. True, he is addressing the hypocrisy of these politicians, but he's also inadvertently saying, "Look, he's gay! Kick the bastard out of office!"

Perhaps he feels that it is a worthy sacrifice for the greater good.

10/11/2006 9:46:33 AM

well. when you have a party whose leadership says that they should have kicked foley out of his committee when they discovered that he was gay (not that he was a pedophile) because gay people aren't to be trusted in matters with children. then yes, i think there are plenty of repub's who are playing on other peoples' homophobia.

10/11/2006 9:50:23 AM

well what the blogger is doing is not helpful

and can you show me where the leadership said that he should be kicked out for being gay??

[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 9:57 AM. Reason : asdf]

10/11/2006 9:57:14 AM

Quote :

"well. when you have a party whose leadership says that they should have kicked foley out of his committee when they discovered that he was gay (not that he was a pedophile) because gay people aren't to be trusted in matters with children. then yes, i think there are plenty of repub's who are playing on other peoples' homophobia."

I'm not sure how we republicans talk...what with you putting all these fucking words in our mouths.

10/11/2006 10:17:39 AM

yeah, the conservatives hate gays

they probably don't like black representatives either


it's 2006, I'm sure most politicians don't care if someone is gay or not

10/11/2006 10:19:02 AM

after n. korea's nuclear tests the other day, revealing other gay congressmen sure is important!

10/11/2006 10:22:59 AM

^I will admit that many on the right side of the aisle DO have a problem with gays. But there really isn't anything wrong with having a problem with gays. The important thing to remember is that they are still people and deserve equal rights.

Which is why I will being voting NO on the marriage amendment in November (in SC). I know my vote here in this is futile, but I'm a conservative that supports gay marriage. I'm not a log cabin one, either .

10/11/2006 10:23:53 AM

Quote :

"I will admit that many on the right side of the aisle DO have a problem with gays. But there really isn't anything wrong with having a problem with gays. The important thing to remember is that they are still people and deserve equal rights."

I agree completely

I just feel that there is no room in politics for hating any group of citizens and I feel that the left is digging here...

this election isn't about making america better, or upholding the constitution... it's about revenge, retribution, and power...

10/11/2006 10:28:19 AM

the only reason they are outing them is to get people to vote for the opposition... which obviously implies that they think outing a republican will produce a groundswell of anti-gay sentiment from the right, causing them to switch and vote for the nongay.

it's actually more offensive than being a hypocritical gay guy, honestly.

10/11/2006 10:28:50 AM

Quote :

"after n. korea's nuclear tests the other day, revealing other gay congressmen sure is important!"

ha now treetwista is freakin out about korea.

10/11/2006 10:34:49 AM

^yeah because this thread is about something really really important

10/11/2006 10:46:25 AM

Quote :

"this is pure,100% politics....but....it will work"

You mean like anti-gay marriage and flag-burning legislation?

10/11/2006 10:49:39 AM

no...all thats legit...i mean...some people dont believe gays should get married...

these bloggers are not doing this so that gays can get married....its just for revenege and to get those people voted out...but they know full well that no matter who gets voted it....gay marriage is still not going to happen....

100%, pure politics...and you know it

10/11/2006 10:51:09 AM

anti-gay marriage

100%, pure politics...and you know it

10/11/2006 10:55:07 AM

i think not....

and....

you know it

10/11/2006 10:58:20 AM

you think wrong

[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 11:01 AM. Reason : why would someone agree with gay marriage if 90% of their voters hated it.]

10/11/2006 11:00:41 AM

how??...i mean,...those who dont think gays should get married vote and argue accordingly...but they really believe it...i mean...i really believe it...and i think most repubs/conservatives do too..

how on earth is outing these guys not politics??

10/11/2006 11:01:52 AM

that's fine if they truely believe that gay-marriage should be banned, but they also know that a constitutional ammendment would never get passed. by putting that as one of their platforms, they are encouraging some of the religious right to come out and vote, that may not have come out before.

this kind of stuff is important to a lot of religious people, and the GOP used it to their advantage....knowing full well that there was no chance of it being a reality. it was very smart of them, but it was politics non-the-less.

10/11/2006 11:05:55 AM

So what if it's politics? Can you really be mad at the Dems when both sides have been doing this forever? There hasn't been a politician in a long time in office that actually cares about the issues.

Bring on the Aristocracy!

10/11/2006 11:08:31 AM

i dont think a ban on gay marriage is that far fetched....if the repubs pick up seats in congress...i mean...it could happen...

and no im not mad that they are plyaing politics....like i said at the start...its pure politics...and it will work...

and please state409...please note how treetwista is posting today...LIKE I AM!!!!

10/11/2006 11:10:32 AM

Quote :

"and please state409...please note how treetwista is posting today...LIKE I AM!!!!"

Why am I noting it?

10/11/2006 11:12:35 AM

21 states have passed marriage amendments. Not one that was put up for election has failed.

I think that does show there is more support for banning gay marriage than once believed.

I'm not in favor of the ban, but I can see that it is a pretty popular cause.

10/11/2006 11:13:33 AM

im talking specifically about a constitutional ammendment (if i wasnt clear, i appologize). there certainly is support for it at a state level, and i agree...i believe in states rights....but i think its just as clear that there is very little support for a consititutional ammendment. whats best at a state level is not always best at a national level....specifically modifying the constitution.

10/11/2006 11:17:15 AM

Quote :

"Why am I noting it?"

..uh huh....

Im actually kinda with sober....personally i think that if Mass. wants gay marriage then they should have it...if NC doesnt....then we should ban it.

I dont support gay marriage and would vote for a ban at the state level...i dont think i wold vote for one at a national level though. but thats just me. there is a huge part of the population who wants it outlawed completely in all states. i think many politicians feel the same way.

[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 11:24 AM. Reason : asdf]

10/11/2006 11:23:43 AM

if there was an amendment proposed today that black people should have to use different water fountains than white people, I wouldnt put it past a couple states to pass it, but that doesn't mean its right

10/11/2006 11:48:15 AM

Quote :

"I dont support gay marriage and would vote for a ban at the state level...i dont think i wold vote for one at a national level though. but thats just me. there is a huge part of the population who wants it outlawed completely in all states. i think many politicians feel the same way."

Well, here is the dilemma. Of course I don't want it at either level, but lets say 49 states pass it and only 1 doesn't. What happens when our married gay couple leaves that 1 state and enters another? Do they get the same legal rights as married people...because if so, everyone will just go there to get married and we've effectively legalized it even though 49 out of 50 states don't want it.

Are they legally married only in that state and not in other states?

I feel like it gets really difficult to decide how to regulate because as a general rule, each state recognizes other states' legal marriages.

If 49/50 states want to ban it, then they should definitely get that national amendment to eliminate the hassles and court cases that would ensue.

10/11/2006 12:34:21 PM

lets not play the "if" game.

10/11/2006 12:37:12 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure how we republicans talk...what with you putting all these fucking words in our mouths."

the comment about taking him out of his committee about protecting children when they found out he was gay years ago. i can't find a transcript but it was from, but i think it was in an interview on all things considered last week with senior House member.

10/11/2006 12:52:23 PM

please to find

10/11/2006 1:28:07 PM

i looked for like half an hour (and can't find it). and the interviewer was like "excuse me. are you sure that's what you meant to say?" and he repeated it.

it was between oct 2nd and 4th i think.

[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 1:36 PM. Reason : .]

10/11/2006 1:35:34 PM

Quote :

"lets not play the "if" game."

Yes, instead we should charge head first into our plan of action without considering contingencies.

10/11/2006 2:51:28 PM

looks to me like this guy hates gays more than the right

ohhh , he likes his political stance more than he cares about the gays

10/11/2006 2:52:34 PM

^^i didnt realize we were planning anything.

10/11/2006 2:56:39 PM

Maybe planning was a poor word.

10/11/2006 3:23:43 PM

Should homosexuals be "outed" if they're passing and supporting legislation that limits the rights of other homosexuals? Or, should they be allowed to keep their homosexuality a secret?

10/26/2006 7:06:19 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15428947/

Quote :

"Former Gov. James McGreevey, who resigned after acknowledging a gay affair, said he would tie the knot with his partner if state lawmakers decide to allow gay marriage."

Quote :

"McGreevey now lives with Mark O'Donnell, a 43-year-old Australian businessman. Before they could marry, the former governor would have to finalize his divorce from his second wife."

[Edited on October 26, 2006 at 7:38 PM. Reason : w]

10/26/2006 7:33:08 PM

Wouldn't being closeted make you a security risk? The person could be blackmailed.

10/26/2006 9:43:01 PM

Quote :

"it's 2006, I'm sure most politicians don't care if someone is gay or not"

wrong

10/26/2006 9:54:40 PM

and you people say conservatives are wackos? this guy is a looney tune. its funny at this point how hilariously blind pryderi is towards a party. glad im a conservative first, then a republican. pryderi is just a democrat yes-man.

10/27/2006 12:54:37 AM

Quote :

"However, I just can't shrug off the gut instinct that by outing all these Congressmen, Rogers is fueling homophobia among conservatives and hurting the increasing tolerance for gay politicians for temporary gains."

He's not fueling homophobia among conservatives, he's fueling homophobia among gays.

Coming out is an act of self-realization. People who grow up in conservative families -- that is to say, the majority of Americans -- very often look at gay people as this contiguous mass; they're "the gays," the flamers, and so on.

And when those people are themselves gay, their immediate fear is that by coming out, they have to give up all the values and background with which they were raised. You come out, and suddenly you're one of "the gays" -- the urban-liberal elite, Queer-Eye-Straight-Guy, velvet-mafia types.

So, cultural discontinuity is a real problem for people dealing with their sexuality.

Mr. Rogers and the gay GOP bashers -- they're just reinforcing the stereotypes. They're proclaiming to the masses that "oh, if you're gay, you have to be one of us!." He's working to place one more unnecessary obstacle to coming out.

Ultimately one's sexuality does not exclusively determine one's politics. The Republican party is a big tent with a lot of viewpoints. Gay people are themselves just that -- people -- who have myriad perspectives and cultural backgrounds.

The checklist for "acceptance" of one's sexuality is precisely one item long: "are you gay?" We should not also add "are you a Democrat?" to it. That is manifestly the politics of exclusion and hypocrisy; a Jim Crow for tolerance.

10/27/2006 5:51:27 AM